37790 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 218 

[Docket No. 210701–0141] 

RIN 0648–BK07 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training 

and Testing Activities in the Point 

Mugu Sea Range Study Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments and information. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the U.S. Navy (Navy) to take 

marine mammals incidental to training 

and testing activities conducted in the 

Point Mugu Sea Range (PMSR) Study 

Area. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue regulations and subsequent Letter 

of Authorization (LOA) to the Navy to 

incidentally take marine mammals 

during the specified activities. NMFS 

will consider public comments prior to 

issuing any final rule and making final 

decisions on the issuance of the 

requested LOA. Agency responses to 

public comments will be summarized in 

the notice of the final decision in the 

final rule. The Navy’s activities qualify 

as military readiness activities pursuant 

to the MMPA, as amended by the 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA). 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than August 30, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit all electronic public 

comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking 

Portal. Go to https://

www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA– 

NMFS–2021–0064 in the Search box. 

Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete 

the required fields, and enter or attach 

your comments. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

or for anyone who is unable to comment 

via electronic submission, please call 

the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Regulatory Action 

These proposed regulations, issued 

under the authority of the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), would provide the 

framework for authorizing the take of 

marine mammals incidental to the 

Navy’s training and testing activities 

(which qualify as military readiness 

activities) from the use of at-surface and 

near-surface explosive detonations 

throughout the PMSR Study Area, as 

well as launch events from San Nicolas 

Island (SNI). The Study Area includes 

36,000 square miles and is located 

adjacent to Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa 

Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties 

along the Pacific Coast of Southern 

California (see Figure 1.1 of the 

application). The two primary 

components of the PMSR are the Special 

Use Airspace (SUA) and the ocean 

Operating Areas (PMSR-controlled sea 

space). The PMSR-controlled sea space 

parallels the California coast for 

approximately 225 nautical miles (nmi) 

and extends approximately 180 nmi 

seaward (see Figure 1–1 of the 

application). 

NMFS received an application from 

the Navy requesting seven-year 

regulations and an authorization to 

incidentally take individuals of multiple 

species of marine mammals (‘‘Navy’s 

rulemaking/LOA application’’ or 

‘‘Navy’s application’’). Take is 

anticipated to occur by Level A and 

Level B harassment incidental to the 

Navy’s training and testing activities, 

with no serious injury or mortality 

expected or proposed for authorization. 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the take of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) of the MMPA direct the Secretary of 

Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 

allow, upon request, the incidental, but 

not intentional, taking of small numbers 

of marine mammals by U.S. citizens 

who engage in a specified activity (other 

than commercial fishing) within a 

specified geographical region if certain 

findings are made and either regulations 

are issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review and the opportunity to 

submit comments. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stocks and will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stocks for taking for subsistence uses 

(where relevant). Further, NMFS must 

prescribe the permissible methods of 

taking and other means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in this rule as ‘‘mitigation 

measures’’). NMFS also must prescribe 

the requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

takings. The MMPA defines ‘‘take’’ to 

mean to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. The Preliminary 

Analysis and Negligible Impact 

Determination section below discusses 

the definition of ‘‘negligible impact.’’ 

The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 

NDAA) (Pub. L. 108–136) amended 

section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA to 

remove the ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

‘‘specified geographical region’’ 

provisions indicated above and 

amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’ 

as applied to a ‘‘military readiness 

activity.’’ The definition of harassment 

for military readiness activities (section 

3(18)(B) of the MMPA) is: (i) Any act 

that injures or has the significant 

potential to injure a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild (Level 

A Harassment); or (ii) Any act that 

disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of natural 

behavioral patterns, including, but not 

limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a 

point where such behavioral patterns 

are abandoned or significantly altered 

(Level B harassment). In addition, the 

2004 NDAA amended the MMPA as it 

relates to military readiness activities 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37791 

such that the least practicable adverse 

impact analysis shall include 

consideration of personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity. 

More recently, section 316 of the 

NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019 (2019 

NDAA) (Pub. L. 115–232), signed on 

August 13, 2018, amended the MMPA to 

allow incidental take rules for military 

readiness activities under section 

101(a)(5)(A) to be issued for up to seven 

years. Prior to this amendment, all 

incidental take rules under section 

101(a)(5)(A) were limited to five years. 

Summary and Background of Request 

On March 9, 2020, NMFS received an 

application from the Navy for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

by Level A and Level B harassment 

incidental to training and testing 

activities (categorized as military 

readiness activities) from (1) the use of 

at-surface or near-surface explosive 

detonations in the PMSR Study Area, as 

well as (2) launch events from SNI, over 

a seven-year period beginning October 

2021 through October 2028. We 

received a revised application on 

August 28, 2020, which provided minor 

revisions to the mitigation and 

monitoring sections, and upon which 

the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application 

was found to be adequate and complete. 

On September 4, 2020, we published a 

notice of receipt (NOR) of application in 

the Federal Register (85 FR 55257), 

requesting comments and information 

related to the Navy’s request for 30 days. 

We reviewed and considered all 

comments and information received on 

the NOR in development of this 

proposed rule. 

The following types of training and 

testing, which are classified as military 

readiness activities pursuant to the 

MMPA, as amended by the 2004 NDAA, 

will be covered under the regulations 

and LOA: Air warfare (air-to-air, 

surface-to-air), electronic warfare 

(directed energy—lasers and highpowered microwave systems), and 

surface warfare (surface-to-surface, airto-surface, and subsurface-to surface). 

The proposed activities will not include 

any sonar, pile driving/removal, or use 

of air guns. 

The Navy’s mission is to organize, 

train, equip, and maintain combat-ready 

naval forces capable of winning wars, 

deterring aggression, and maintaining 

freedom of the seas. This mission is 

mandated by Federal law (10 U.S.C. 

8062), which requires the readiness of 

the naval forces of the United States. 

The Navy executes this responsibility by 

training and testing at sea, often in 

designated operating areas (OPAREA) 

and testing and training ranges. The 

Navy must be able to access and utilize 

these areas and associated sea space and 

air space in order to develop and 

maintain skills for conducting naval 

operations. The Navy’s testing activities 

ensure naval forces are equipped with 

well-maintained systems that take 

advantage of the latest technological 

advances. The Navy’s research and 

acquisition community conducts 

military readiness activities that involve 

testing. The Navy tests ships, aircraft, 

weapons, combat systems, sensors, and 

related equipment, and conducts 

scientific research activities to achieve 

and maintain military readiness. 

The Navy has been conducting testing 

and training activities in the PMSR 

Study Area since the PMSR was 

established in 1946. The tempo and 

types of training and testing activities 

fluctuate because of the introduction of 

new technologies, the evolving nature of 

international events, advances in 

warfighting doctrine and procedures, 

and changes in force structure (e.g., 

organization of ships, submarines, 

aircraft, weapons, and personnel). Such 

developments influence the frequency, 

duration, intensity, and location of 

required training and testing activities. 

The proposed activities include current 

activities, previously analyzed in the 

2002 PMSR Environment Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS), and 

increases in the testing and training 

activities as described in the 2020 PMSR 

DEIS/OEIS. NMFS promulgated MMPA 

incidental take regulations relating to 

missile launches from SNI from June 3, 

2014, through June 3, 2019 (79 FR 

32678; June 6, 2014). Since then, the 

Navy has been operating under IHAs (84 

FR 28462, June 19, 2019; 85 FR 38863, 

June 29, 2020) for those similar 

activities on SNI. For this rulemaking, 

the Navy is requesting authorization for 

marine mammal take incidental to 

activities on SNI similar to those they 

have conducted under these and 

previous authorizations, as well as the 

use of at-surface and near-surface 

explosive detonations throughout the 

PMSR Study Area. The proposed testing 

and training activities are deemed 

necessary to accomplish Naval Air 

System Command’s mission of 

providing for the safe and secure 

collection of decision-quality data; and 

developing, operating, managing and 

sustaining the interoperability of the 

Major Range Test Facility Base at the 

PMSR into the foreseeable future. 

The Navy’s rulemaking/LOA 

application reflects the most up-to-date 

compilation of training and testing 

activities deemed necessary to 

accomplish military readiness 

requirements. The types and numbers of 

activities included in the rule account 

for fluctuations in training and testing 

in order to meet evolving or emergent 

military readiness requirements. These 

proposed regulations would cover 

training and testing activities that would 

occur for a seven-year period beginning 

October 2021. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

The Navy requests authorization to 

take marine mammals incidental to 

conducting training and testing 

activities. The Navy has determined that 

explosive stressors and missile launch 

activities are most likely to result in 

impacts on marine mammals that could 

rise to the level of harassment, and 

NMFS concurs with this determination. 

Descriptions of these activities are 

provided in section 2 of the 2020 PMSR 

Draft EIS/OEIS (DEIS/OEIS) (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2020) and in 

the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application 

(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-militaryreadiness-activities), and are 

summarized here. 

Dates and Duration 

The specified activities would occur 

at any time during the seven-year period 

of validity of the regulations, with the 

exception of the activity types and time 

periods for which limitations have 

explicitly been identified (to the 

maximum extent practicable; see 

Proposed Mitigation Measures section). 

The proposed amount of training and 

testing activities are described in the 

Detailed Description of the Specified 

Activities section (Table 3). 

Geographical Region 

The PMSR Study Area is located 

adjacent to Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa 

Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties 

along the Pacific Coast of Southern 

California and includes a 36,000-squaremile sea range (Figure 1). It is a 

designated Major Range Test Facility 

Base and is considered a national asset 

that exists primarily to provide test and 

evaluation information for DoD decision 

makers and to support the needs of 

weapon system development programs 

and DoD research needs. The two 

primary components of the PMSR Study 

Area are Special Use Airspace (SUA) 

and the ocean Operating Areas. 

Additionally, the Navy is proposing 

launch activities on San Nicolas Island 

(SNI), California, for testing and training 

activities associated with operations 

within the PMSR Study Area. SNI is one 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37792 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

of the Channel Islands in the PMSR 

Study Area. 

Special Use Airspace 

The SUA is airspace designated 

wherein activities must be confined 

because of their nature, or wherein 

limitations are imposed upon aircraft 

operations that are not a part of those 

activities, or both. SUA consists of both 

controlled and uncontrolled airspace 

and has defined dimensions. Flight and 

other activities for non-participating 

aircraft are restricted or prohibited for 

safety or security reasons. The majority 

of SUA is established for military flight 

activities and, with the exception of 

prohibited areas, may be used for 

commercial or general aviation when 

not reserved for military activities. Two 

area components of the PMSR SUA: 

D Warning Areas—A Warning Area 

is airspace of defined dimensions, 

extending from 3 nmi outward from the 

coast that contains activity that may be 

hazardous to non-participating aircraft. 

Warning areas are established to contain 

a variety of hazardous aircraft and nonaircraft activities, such as aerial 

gunnery, air and surface missile firings, 

bombing, aircraft carrier operations, 

surface and subsurface operations, and 

naval gunfire. The 11 Warning Areas 

within the PMSR include W–532N, 

W–532E, W–532S; W–537; W–289N, W– 

289 S, W–289W, W–289E; W–292W, W– 

292E; and W–412 (see Figure 1). 

D Restricted Areas—restricted areas 

are a type of SUA within which the 

flight of aircraft, while not wholly 

prohibited, is subject to restriction. 

Ocean Operating Areas 

The PMSR-controlled sea space 

(Ocean Operating Areas) parallels the 

California coast for approximately 225 

nmi and extends approximately 180 nmi 

seaward, aligning with the PMSR 

Warning Area airspace (Figure 1). The 

controlled sea space areas consist of the 

following: 

D Surface Danger Zones—A danger 

zone is a defined water area used for 

target practice, bombing, rocket firing, 

or other especially hazardous military 

activities. 

D Restricted Area—A restricted area 

is a defined water area for the purpose 

of prohibiting or limiting public access 

to the area. 

Additional detail can be found in 

Chapter 2 of the Navy’s rulemaking/ 

LOA application. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37793 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Overview of Training and Testing 

Within the PMSR Study Area 

The Navy describes and analyzes the 

effects of its activities within the 2020 

PMSR DEIS/OEIS. In its assessment, the 

Navy concluded that at-surface and 

near-surface explosive detonations were 

the stressors that would result in 

impacts on marine mammals that could 

rise to the level of harassment as 

defined under the MMPA. Therefore, 

the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application 

provides the Navy’s assessment of 

potential effects from these stressors in 

terms of various warfare mission areas 

in which they will be conducted. 

Primary Mission Areas 

The Navy categorizes its at-sea 

activities into functional warfare areas 

called primary mission areas. Each 

warfare community may train in some 

or all of these primary mission areas. 

The Navy also categorizes most, but not 

all, of its testing activities under these 

primary mission areas. Activities 

addressed for the PMSR Study Area are 

categorized under three primary mission 

areas. Within those three primary 

mission areas, there are more specific 

categories or activity scenarios that 

reflect testing and training activities, as 

listed below: Air warfare (air-to-air, 

surface-to-air); Electronic warfare 

(directed energy—lasers and highpowered microwave systems); and 

Surface warfare (surface-to-surface, airto-surface, and subsurface-to-surface). A 

description of the munitions, targets, 

systems, and other material used during 

training and testing activities within 

these primary mission areas is provided 

in Appendix A (Training and Testing 

Activities Descriptions) of the 2020 

PMSR DEIS/OEIS and summarized here. 

Air warfare—The mission of air 

warfare is to destroy or reduce enemy 

air and missile threats (including 

unmanned airborne threats) and serves 

two purposes: To protect U.S. forces 

from attacks from the air and to gain air 

superiority. Air warfare provides U.S. 

forces with adequate attack warnings, 

while denying hostile forces the ability 

to gather intelligence about U.S. forces. 

Aircraft conduct air warfare through 

radar search, detection, identification, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP16JY21.002</GPH>

Figure 1--Map of the PMSR Study Area 
37794 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

and engagement of airborne threats. 

Surface ships conduct air warfare 

through an array of modern anti-aircraft 

weapon systems such as aircraftdetecting radar, naval guns linked to 

radar-directed fire-control systems, 

surface-to-air missile systems, and 

radar-controlled guns for close-in point 

defense. 

Testing of air warfare systems is 

required to ensure the equipment is 

fully functional under the conditions in 

which it will be used. Tests may be 

conducted on radar and other earlywarning detection and tracking systems, 

new guns or gun rounds, and missiles. 

Testing of these systems may be 

conducted on new ships and aircraft, 

and on existing ships and aircraft 

following maintenance, repair, or 

modification. For some systems, tests 

are conducted periodically to assess 

operability. Additionally, tests may be 

conducted in support of scientific 

research to assess new and emerging 

technologies. Air-to-air scenarios 

involve the employment of an airborne 

weapon system against airborne targets. 

Missiles are fired from a fighter aircraft 

for both testing and training events. 

Surface-to-air scenarios evaluate the 

overall weapon system performance, 

warhead effectiveness, and software/ 

hardware modifications or upgrades of 

ground-based and ship-based weapons 

systems. Missiles are fired from a ship 

or a land-based launcher against a 

variety of supersonic and subsonic 

airborne targets. 

Electronic Warfare—The mission of 

electronic warfare is to degrade the 

enemy’s ability to use electronic 

systems, such as communication 

systems and radar, and to confuse or 

deny them the ability to defend their 

forces and assets. Electronic warfare is 

also used to detect enemy threats and 

counter their attempts to degrade the 

electronic capabilities of the Navy. 

Typical electronic warfare activities 

include threat avoidance training, 

signals analysis for intelligence 

purposes, and use of airborne and 

surface electronic jamming devices (that 

block or interfere with other devices) to 

defeat tracking, navigation, and 

communications systems. Testing of 

electronic warfare systems is conducted 

to improve the capabilities of systems 

and ensure compatibility with new 

systems. Testing involves the use of 

aircraft, surface ships, and submarine 

crews to evaluate the effectiveness of 

electronic systems. Similar to training 

activities, typical electronic warfare 

testing activities include the use of 

airborne and surface electronic jamming 

devices (including testing chaff and 

flares; see Appendix A (PMSR Scenario 

Descriptions) of the 2020 PMSR DEIS/ 

OEIS for a description of these devices) 

to defeat tracking and communications 

systems. 

Surface Warfare—The mission of 

surface warfare is to obtain control of 

sea space from which naval forces may 

operate, and entails offensive action 

against other surface, subsurface, and air 

targets while also defending against 

enemy forces. In surface warfare, aircraft 

use guns, air-launched cruise missiles, 

or other precision-guided munitions; 

ships employ naval guns, and surfaceto-surface missiles; and submarines 

attack surface ships using submarinelaunched, anti-ship cruise missiles. 

Surface warfare training includes 

surface-to-surface gunnery and missile 

exercises, air-to-surface gunnery and 

missile exercises, and submarine missile 

launch activities, and other munitions 

against surface targets. Testing of 

weapons used in surface warfare is 

conducted to develop new technologies 

and to assess weapon performance and 

operability with new systems, such as 

unmanned systems. Tests include 

various air-to-surface guns and missiles, 

surface-to-surface guns and missiles, 

and bombing tests. Testing activities 

may be integrated into training activities 

to test aircraft or aircraft systems in the 

delivery of munitions on a surface 

target. In most cases the tested systems 

are used in the same manner in which 

they are used for Fleet training 

activities. Air-to-surface tests evaluate 

the integration of a missile or other 

weapons system into Department of 

Defense aircraft, or the performance of 

the missile/system itself. Missiles are 

fired from an aircraft against a variety of 

mobile seaborne targets and fixed aim 

points. 

Summary Testing—Research, 

Development, Acquisition, Testing, and 

Evaluation of new technologies by the 

U.S. Department of Defense occurs 

continually to ensure that the U.S. 

military can counter new and 

anticipated threats. All new Navy 

systems and related equipment must be 

tested to ensure proper functioning 

before delivery to the Fleets for use. The 

PMSR Study Area is the Navy’s primary 

ocean testing area for guided missiles 

and related ordnance. Test operations 

on the PMSR Study Area are conducted 

under highly controlled conditions, 

allowing for the collection of empirical 

data to evaluate the performance of a 

weapon system or subsystem. Testing 

conducted in the PMSR Study Area is 

important for maintaining readiness. 

Two of the U.S. Navy’s Systems 

Commands, Naval Sea Systems 

Command (NAVSEA) and Naval Air 

Systems Command (NAVAIR), sponsor 

the majority of the testing within the 

PMSR Study Area. NAVSEA’s five 

affiliated Program Executive Offices 

(PEOs) oversee over a dozen Program 

Manager, Sea offices that sponsor testing 

activities within the PMSR Study Area. 

NAVAIR’s four affiliated PEOs, along 

with NAVAIR Headquarters-managed 

programs, oversee approximately 20 

Program Managers and Air offices that 

also sponsor testing activities at PMSR. 

Target and Missile Launches on SNI— 

The Navy plans to continue a target and 

missile launch program from two 

launch sites on SNI for testing and 

training activities associated with 

operations within the PMSR Study 

Area. Missiles vary from tactical and 

developmental weapons to target 

missiles used to test defensive strategies 

and other weapons systems. Some 

launch events involve a single missile or 

target, while others involve the launch 

of multiple missiles or targets in quick 

succession. The missiles or targets are 

launched from one of several fixed 

locations on the western end of SNI. 

Missiles or targets launched from SNI 

fly generally west, southwest, and 

northwest through the PMSR Study 

Area. The primary launch locations are 

the Alpha Launch Complex, located 190 

meters (m) above sea level on the westcentral part of SNI and the Building 807 

Launch Complex, which accommodates 

several fixed and mobile launchers, at 

the western end of SNI at approximately 

11 m above sea level. The Point Mugu 

airfield on the mainland, the airfield on 

SNI, and the target sites in the PMSR 

will be a routine part of launch 

operations. 

Description of Stressors 

The Navy uses a variety of platforms, 

weapons, and other devices, including 

ones used to ensure the safety of Sailors 

and Marines, to meet its mission. 

Training and testing with these systems 

may introduce acoustic (sound) energy 

or shock waves from explosives into the 

environment. The following subsections 

describe explosives detonated at or near 

the surface of the water and launch 

noise associated with missiles launched 

from SNI for marine mammals and their 

habitat (including prey species) within 

the PMSR Study Area. Because of the 

complexity of analyzing sound 

propagation in the ocean environment, 

the Navy relied on acoustic models in 

its environmental analyses and 

rulemaking/LOA application that 

considered sound source characteristics 

and varying ocean conditions across the 

PMSR Study Area. Stressor/resource 

interactions that were determined to 

have de minimis or no impacts (i.e., 

vessel, aircraft, or weapons noise) were 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37795 

not carried forward for analysis in the 

Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application. 

NMFS reviewed the Navy’s analysis and 

conclusions on de minimis sources and 

finds them complete and supportable. 

Acoustic stressors include incidental 

sources of broadband sound produced 

as a byproduct of vessel movement and 

use of weapons or other deployed 

objects. Explosives also produce 

broadband sound but are characterized 

separately from other acoustic sources 

due to their unique hazardous 

characteristics. There are no sonar 

activities proposed in the PMSR Study 

Area. Characteristics of explosives are 

described below. 

In order to better organize and 

facilitate the analysis of various 

explosives used for training and testing 

by the Navy, including sonar and other 

transducers and explosives, a series of 

source classifications, or source bins, 

was developed by the Navy. The source 

classification bins do not include the 

broadband sounds produced incidental 

to vessel or aircraft transits, weapons 

firing, and bow shocks. 

The use of source classification bins 

provides the following benefits: 

D Provides the ability for new 

sensors or munitions to be covered 

under existing authorizations, as long as 

those sources fall within the parameters 

of a bin; 

D Improves efficiency of source 

utilization data collection and reporting 

requirements anticipated under the 

MMPA authorizations; 

D Ensures a conservative approach to 

all impact estimates, as all sources 

within a given class are modeled as the 

most impactful source (having the 

largest net explosive weight) within that 

bin; 

D Allows analyses to be conducted in 

a more efficient manner, without any 

compromise of analytical results; and 

D Provides a framework to support 

the reallocation of source usage (number 

of explosives) between different source 

bins, as long as the total numbers of 

takes remain within the overall 

analyzed and authorized limits. This 

flexibility is required to support 

evolving Navy training and testing 

requirements, which are linked to real 

world events. 

Explosives 

This section describes the 

characteristics of explosions during 

naval training and testing. The activities 

analyzed in the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA 

application that use explosives are 

described in Appendix A (PMSR 

Scenario Descriptions) of the 2020 

PMSR DEIS/OEIS. 

To more completely analyze the 

results predicted by the Navy’s acoustic 

effects model from detonations 

occurring in-air above the ocean surface, 

it is necessary to consider the transfer of 

energy across the air-water interface. 

Detonation of an explosive in air 

creates a supersonic high pressure shock 

wave that expands outward from the 

point of detonation (Kinney & Graham, 

1985; Swisdak, 1975). The nearinstantaneous rise from ambient 

pressure to an extremely high peak 

pressure is what makes the explosive 

shock wave potentially injurious to an 

animal experiencing the rapid pressure 

change (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2017e). Farther from an explosive, the 

peak pressures decay and the explosive 

waves propagate as an impulsive, 

broadband sound. As the shock wavefront travels away from the point of 

detonation, it slows and begins to 

behave as an acoustic wave-front 

travelling at the speed of sound. 

Whereas a shock wave from a 

detonation in-air has an abrupt peak 

pressure, that same pressure disturbance 

when transmitted through the water 

surface results in an underwater 

pressure wave that begins and ends 

more gradually compared with the in-air 

shock wave, and diminishes with 

increasing depth and distance from the 

source (Bolghasi et al., 2017; Chapman 

and Godin, 2004; Cheng and Edwards, 

2003; Moody, 2006; Richardson et al., 

1995; Sawyers, 1968; Sohn et al., 2000; 

Swisdak, 1975; Waters and Glass, 1970; 

Woods et al., 2015). The propagation of 

the shock wave in air and then 

transitioning underwater, is very 

different from a detonation occurring 

deep underwater where there is little 

interaction with the surface. In the case 

of an underwater detonation occurring 

just below the surface, a portion of the 

energy from the detonation would be 

released into the air (referred to as 

surface blow off), and at greater depths 

a pulsating, air-filled cavitation bubble 

would form, collapse, and reform 

around the detonation point (Urick, 

1983). The Navy’s acoustic effects 

model for analyzing underwater impacts 

on marine species does not account for 

the loss of energy due to surface blowoff or cavitation at depth. Both of these 

phenomena would diminish the 

magnitude of the acoustic energy 

received by an animal under real-world 

conditions (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2018c). 

Propagation of explosive pressure 

waves in water is highly dependent on 

environmental characteristics such as 

bathymetry, bottom type, water depth, 

temperature, and salinity, which affect 

how the pressure waves are reflected, 

refracted, or scattered; the potential for 

reverberation; and interference due to 

multi-path propagation. In addition, 

absorption greatly affects the distance 

over which higher-frequency 

components of explosive broadband 

noise can propagate. Because of the 

complexity of analyzing sound 

propagation in the ocean environment, 

the Navy relies on acoustic models in its 

environmental analyses that consider 

sound source characteristics and 

varying ocean conditions across the 

PMSR Study Area (U.S. Department of 

the Navy, 2019a). 

Missiles, rockets, bombs, and medium 

and large-caliber projectiles may be 

explosive or nonexplosive, depending 

on the objective of the testing or training 

activity in which they are used. The 

proposed activities do not include 

explosive munitions used underwater. 

Missiles, bombs, and projectiles that 

detonate at or near (within 10 m of) the 

water’s surface are considered for the 

potential impact they may have on 

marine mammals. All explosives used 

during testing and training activities 

within the PMSR Study Area would 

detonate at or near the surface or in-air. 

Several parameters influence the 

acoustic effect of an explosive: The 

weight of the explosive warhead, the 

type of explosive material, the 

boundaries and characteristics of the 

propagation medium(s); and the 

detonation depth underwater and the 

depth of the receiver (i.e., marine 

mammal). The net explosive weight 

(NEW), which is the explosive power of 

a charge expressed as the equivalent 

weight of trinitrotoluene (TNT), 

accounts for the first two parameters. 

Land-Based Launch Noise on San 

Nicolas Island 

Noise from target and missile 

launches on SNI can also occur. These 

ongoing activities affecting pinnipeds 

hauled out in the vicinity of launch sites 

have been analyzed previously (NMFS 

2014, 2019, 2020) and are summarized 

below as part of the Navy’s rulemaking/ 

LOA application. As part of previous 

authorizations, the Navy could conduct 

up to 40 launch events annually from 

SNI, but the total may be less than 40 

depending on operational requirements. 

Launch timing will be determined by 

operational, meteorological, and 

logistical factors. Up to 10 of the 40 

launches may occur at night, but this is 

also dependent on operational 

requirements, and night-time launches 

are only conducted when required by 

test objectives. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37796 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Vessel Strike 

Vessel strikes have the potential to 

result in incidental take from serious 

injury and/or mortality. Vessel strikes 

are not specific to any particular 

training or testing activity, but rather are 

a limited, sporadic, and incidental 

result of Navy vessel movement within 

a study area. Vessel strikes from 

commercial, recreational, and military 

vessels are known to seriously injure 

and occasionally kill cetaceans 

(Abramson et al., 2011; BermanKowalewski et al., 2010; Calambokidis, 

2012; Douglas et al., 2008; Laggner, 

2009; Lammers et al., 2003; Van der 

Hoop et al., 2012; Van der Hoop et al., 

2013), although reviews of the literature 

on ship strikes mainly involve collisions 

between commercial vessels and whales 

(Jensen and Silber, 2003; Laist et al., 

2001). Vessel speed, size, and mass are 

all important factors in determining 

both the potential likelihood and 

impacts of a vessel strike to marine 

mammals (Conn and Silber, 2013; 

Gende et al., 2011; Silber et al., 2010; 

Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; Wiley et 

al., 2016). For large vessels, speed and 

angle of approach can influence the 

severity of a strike. 

The number of Navy vessels in the 

PMSR Study Area at any given time 

varies and is dependent on scheduled 

testing and training requirements. Most 

activities include either one or two 

vessels and may last from a few hours 

to two weeks. Vessel movement as part 

of the proposed activities would be 

widely dispersed throughout the PMSR 

Study Area. Vessels used include ships 

(e.g., aircraft carriers, surface 

combatants), support craft, and 

submarines. Vessel size ranges from 15 

ft to over 1,000 ft, and vessels transit at 

speeds that are optimal for fuel 

conservation or to meet operational 

requirements. In comparison, 

commercial ship size can range from 

very large oil tankers that are over 1,000 

ft in length to the smaller general cargo 

ships with lengths that can be under 300 

ft. Large Navy ships (greater than 18 m 

in length) generally operate at average 

speeds of 10–15 knots, and submarines 

generally operate at speeds in the range 

of 8–13 knots. Small Navy craft (for 

purposes of this discussion, less than 18 

m in length), which are all support craft, 

have much more variable speeds (0–50+ 

knots, dependent on the mission). While 

these speeds are averages that are 

representative of most events, some 

vessels need to operate outside of these 

parameters. For example, to produce the 

required relative wind speed over the 

flight deck, an aircraft carrier engaged in 

flight operations must adjust its speed 

through the water accordingly. Also, 

there are other instances, such as launch 

and recovery of a small rigid-hull 

inflatable boat, or retrieval of a target 

when vessels would be dead in the 

water, or moving slowly ahead to 

maintain steerage. There are a few 

specific testing and training events that 

include high-speed requirements for 

certain systems for which vessels would 

operate at higher speeds. 

Refer to Chapter 3, Affected 

Environment and Environmental 

Consequences of the 2020 PMSR DEIS/ 

OEIS for additional details on vessel use 

and movement in the PMSR Study Area. 

Detailed Description of the Specified 

Activities 

Proposed Training and Testing 

Activities 

Training and testing activities would 

be conducted at sea, in designated 

airspace, and on SNI, within the PMSR 

Study Area. 

The proposed training and testing 

activities are deemed necessary to 

accomplish Naval Air Systems 

Command’s mission of providing for the 

safe and secure collection of decisionquality data; and developing, operating, 

managing and sustaining the 

interoperability of the Major Range Test 

Facility Base at the PMSR into the 

foreseeable future. Collectively, the 

proposed training and testing activities 

support current and projected military 

readiness requirements into the 

foreseeable future, as shown in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ANNUAL PROPOSED ACTIVITIES IN THE PMSR STUDY AREA

[Inclusive of SNI launches] 

Activity Activity sub category Proposed 

activities 

Aerial Targets (# of targets) ........................................................ .................................................................................................... 176 

Surface Targets (# of targets) .................................................... .................................................................................................... 522 

Ordnance (# of ordnance) .......................................................... Bombs ........................................................................................ 30 

Gun Ammunition ........................................................................ 281,230 

Missiles ...................................................................................... 584 

Rockets ...................................................................................... 40 

Most of the factors influencing 

frequency and types of activities are 

fluid in nature (i.e., continually 

evolving and changing), and the annual 

activity level in the PMSR Study Area 

will continue to fluctuate. The number 

of events may not be the same year to 

year, but the maximum number of 

events were predicted annually. Total 

annual events would not exceed what is 

proposed in Table 1 above. Proposed 

training and testing duration and 

frequency varies depending on Fleet 

requirements, and funding and does not 

occur on a predictable annual cycle. 

Fleet training activities occur over 

scheduled continuous and 

uninterrupted blocks of time, focusing 

on the development of core capabilities/ 

skills. Training events in the PMSR 

Study Area are conducted to ensure 

Navy forces can sustain their training 

cycle requirements. Primarily, changes 

occur with increases or decreases in 

annual operational tempo of activities, 

in addition to changes in the types of 

aircraft, vessels, targets, ordnance, and 

tasks that are actions or processes 

performed as part of Navy operations. 

Future testing depends on scientific 

and technological developments that are 

not easy to predict, and experimental 

designs may evolve with emerging 

science and technology. Even with these 

challenges, the Navy makes every effort 

to forecast all future testing 

requirements. As a result, testing 

requirements are driven by the need to 

support Fleet readiness based on 

emerging national security interests, and 

alternatives must have sufficient annual 

capacity to conduct the research, 

development, and testing of new 

systems and technologies, with 

upgrades, repairs, and maintenance of 

existing systems. 

Fleet Training 

Fleet training within the PMSR Study 

Area includes the same types of warfare 

of the primary mission areas. Training 

conducted in conjunction with testing 

activities provide Fleet operators unique 

opportunities to train with ship and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37797 

aircraft combat weapon systems and 

personnel in scripted warfare 

environments, including live-fire 

events. For example, Fleet training 

would occur while testing a weapon 

system, in which Sailors would 

experience (be trained in) the use of the 

system being tested. Combat ship crews 

train in conjunction with scheduled 

ship testing and qualification trials, to 

take advantage of the opportunity to 

provide concurrent training and 

familiarization for ship personnel in 

maintaining and operating installed 

equipment, identifying design problems, 

and determining deficiencies in support 

elements (e.g., documentation, logistics, 

test equipment, or training). Live and 

inert weapons, along with chaff, flares, 

jammers, and lasers may be used. 

Typically concurrent with testing, 

surface training available within the 

PMSR Study Area includes tracking 

events, missile-firing events, gun-firing 

events, high-speed anti-radiation missile 

events, and shipboard self-defense 

system training, (e.g., Phalanx (Close-in 

Weapons System), Rolling Airframe 

Missile, and Evolved Sea Sparrow 

Missile). These events are limited in 

scope and generally focus on one or two 

tasks. Missiles may be fired against 

subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic 

targets. Certain training events designed 

for single ships are conducted to utilize 

unique targets only available for training 

in the PMSR Study Area. 

Aviation warfare training conducted 

in the PMSR Study Area, categorized as 

unit-level training, is designed for a 

small number of aircraft up to a 

squadron of aircraft. These training 

events occur within the PMSR Study 

Area, as it is the only West Coast Navy 

venue to provide powered air-to-air 

targets. They are limited in scope and 

generally focus on one or two tasks. 

These scenarios require planning and 

coordination to ensure safe and effective 

training. 

Combat Systems Testing 

The System Command Program 

Executive Offices are tasked with 

conducting extensive combat systems 

tests and trials on each new platform 

prior to releasing the platform to the 

Fleet, to include ships that have been in 

an extended upgrade or overhaul status. 

The PMSR Study Area is the preferred 

site to conduct these tests, as it offers a 

venue for a thorough evaluation of 

combat and weapons system 

performance through the actual 

employment of weapon systems. The 

comprehensive tests are conducted by 

the responsible Program Manager, with 

close cooperation from the Fleet Type 

Commanders (Surface Force, Air Force, 

or Submarine Force). Frequent tests 

conducted in the PMSR Study Area are 

Combat Systems Ship Qualification 

Trials (CSSQTs). This is a series of 

comprehensive tests and trials designed 

to show that the equipment and systems 

included in the CSSQT program meet 

combat system requirements. Live and 

inert weapons, along with chaff, flares, 

jammers, and lasers may be used. Naval 

Sea Systems Command has recently 

developed two new reporting programs 

to test and evaluate combat and 

weapons system performance on new 

classes of ships, resulting in an 

increased tempo in the PMSR Study 

Area. 

Explosives At-Surface or Near the 

Surface 

Missiles, bombs, and projectiles that 

detonate at or near (within 10 m of) the 

water’s surface are considered for the 

potential that they could result in an 

acoustic impact to marine mammals that 

may be underwater and nearby. The 

maximum number of explosives and the 

appropriate events modeling bin for the 

proposed activities are provided in 

Table 2 for the proposed activities in the 

PMSR Study Area. Table 2 describes the 

maximum number of explosives that 

could be used in any year under the 

proposed training and testing activities. 

Under the proposed activities, bin use 

could vary annually (but would not 

exceed the maximum), and the sevenyear totals for the proposed training and 

testing activities take into account that 

annual variability. 

TABLE 2—EXPLOSIVES DETONATING AT OR NEAR THE SURFACE BY BINS ANNUALLY AND FOR A SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR

TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PMSR STUDY AREA

[Inclusive of SNI Launches] 

Primary mission area activity scenarios Explosive 

bin Munition type 

Maximum 

number of 

high explosive 

munitions 

used annually 

Maximum 

number of 

high 

explosives 

used over a 

7-year period 

proposed 

activity 

Surface-Surface .......................................................................... E1 Gunnery .................................... 22,110 154,770 

E3 Gunnery .................................... 4,909 34,363 

E5 Gunnery .................................... 1,666 11,662 

Air-Surface .................................................................................. E5 Rockets .................................... 24 168 

Air-Surface; Surface-Air .............................................................. E6 Missiles ..................................... 72 504 

Air-Surface .................................................................................. E7 Missiles, Bombs ....................... 45 315 

Air-Surface; Surface-Air .............................................................. E8 Missiles ..................................... 45 315 

Air-Surface; Surface-Surface ...................................................... E9 Missiles, Bombs, Rockets ........ 58 406 

Surface-Surface; Subsurface-Surface ........................................ E10 Missiles ..................................... 13 91 

Note: Bins E1–E5 are gunnery events that involve guns with high rates of firing ‘‘clusters’’ of munitions (e.g., >80–200 rounds per minute for 

Bin E1, 500–650 rounds per minute for Bin E3, and 16–20 rounds per minutes for Bin E5), hence the high number of HE munitions used during 

these activities. The numbers above do not reflect the actual number of events, which can vary and typically last 1–3 hrs. The increase in tempo 

under the Proposed Action is a result of a proposed increase in Combat Systems Ship Qualification Trials as discussed in Section 2.2.1 (Current 

and Proposed Activities) of the 2020 PMSR DSEIS/OEIS. 

The explosive energy released by 

detonations in air has been well studied, 

and basic methods are available to 

estimate the explosive energy exposure 

with distance from the detonation (e.g., 

U.S. Department of the Navy, 1975). In 

air, the propagation of impulsive noise 

from an explosion is highly influenced 

by atmospheric conditions, including 

temperature and wind. While basic 

estimation methods do not consider the 

unique environmental conditions that 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37798 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

may be present on a given day, they 

allow for approximation of explosive 

energy propagation under neutral 

atmospheric conditions. Explosions that 

occur during air warfare would typically 

be at a sufficient altitude that a large 

portion of the sound refracts upward 

due to cooling temperatures with 

increased altitude. Based on an 

understanding of the explosive energy 

released by detonations in air, 

detonations occurring in air at altitudes 

greater than 10 m are not likely to result 

in acoustic impacts to marine mammals 

and thus are not carried forward in the 

analysis. 

Missile Launch Activities on SNI 

Missiles can be propelled by either 

liquid-fueled or solid-fueled rocket 

engines; however, solid fuel is preferred 

for military uses. Such engines 

commonly propel tactical guided 

missiles (i.e., missiles intended for use 

within the immediate area) toward their 

targets at twice the speed of sound. 

Cruise or ballistic missiles are designed 

to strike targets far beyond the 

immediate area, and are therefore also 

known as strategic missiles. Cruise 

missiles are jet-propelled at subsonic 

speeds throughout their flights, while 

ballistic missiles are rocket-powered 

only in the initial (boost) phase of flight, 

after which they follow an arcing 

trajectory to the target. As gravity pulls 

the ballistic warhead back to Earth, 

speeds of several times the speed of 

sound are reached. Ballistic missiles are 

most often categorized as short-range, 

medium-range, intermediate-range, and 

intercontinental ballistic missiles. 

Missile weights range between 54–2,900 

kilograms (kg), but total weight is 

dependent on fuel or boosters. 

Table 3 shows the number of launches 

that have occurred at SNI since 2001 

and the number of launch events that 

have occurred during the associated 

comprehensive reporting timeframes. 

There have not been more than 25 

launch events conducted in any given 

year since 2001. However, as part of the 

proposed activities, 40 launch events 

per year from SNI involving various 

missiles and aerial targets are requested 

for take authorization. 

TABLE 3—THE TOTAL NUMBER OF

LAUNCHES THAT HAVE OCCURRED

SINCE 2001 AT SNI 

Time period Number of 

launches 

August 2001 to March 2008 77 

June 2009 to June 2014 ...... 36 

June 2014 to June 2019 ...... 27 

A combination of missiles and targets 

are launched from SNI, including aerial 

targets, surface-to-surface missiles, and 

surface-to-air missiles, with aerial 

targets representing the majority of the 

launches from SNI. 

The following descriptions are 

representative of some of the types of 

targets and missiles typically launched 

from SNI. While this list is not inclusive 

of all potential missiles and targets that 

could be launched annually, the 

descriptions and the sound profiles are 

representative of the diversity of the 

types of missiles and targets typically 

launched. For information on the sound 

levels these missiles produce please 

refer to Section 1.2 of the application. 

GQM–163A ‘‘Coyote’’—The Coyote, 

designated GQM–163A, is an 

expendable Supersonic Sea-Skimming 

Target (SSST) powered by a ductedrocket ramjet. This missile is designed 

to provide a ground-launched, aerial 

target system to simulate a supersonic, 

sea-skimming Anti-Ship Cruise missile 

threat. Coyote launches are expected to 

be the primary large missile launched 

from SNI over the next several years. 

Coyotes are launched from previously 

installed launchers at the inland 

location (Alpha Launch Complex) on 

SNI. 

Standard Missile (SM–2, SM–3, SM– 

6)—The Standard family of missiles 

consists of a range of air defense 

missiles including supersonic, medium, 

and extended range surface-to-air and 

surface-to-surface missiles. The 

Standard Missile 3 Block IIA (SM–3) is 

a ship-based missile system used to 

intercept short- to intermediate-range 

ballistic missiles as a part of the Aegis 

Ballistic Missile Defense System. 

Although primarily designed as an 

antiballistic missile defensive weapon, 

the SM–3 has also been employed in an 

anti-satellite capacity against a satellite 

at the lower end of low Earth orbit. 

Similarly, the SM–6 is a vertically 

launched, extended range missile 

compatible with the Aegis Weapon 

System to be used against extended 

range threats. The SM–6 Block I/IA 

combines the tested legacy of the SM– 

2 propulsion system and warhead with 

an active radio frequency seeker 

modified from the AIM–120 Advanced 

Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile. The 

new features allow for over-the-horizon 

engagements, enhanced capability at 

extended ranges and increased 

firepower. To date, only the SM–3 has 

been launched from SNI. 

Other Missiles That May Be Used 

During Launch Events—The Navy may 

also launch other missiles to simulate 

various types of threat missiles and 

aircraft and to test other systems. For 

example, Tactical Tomahawks were 

launched from Building 807 Launch 

Complex in 2018 and 2019. Under this 

proposed rule, missiles launched from 

SNI would have sound source levels the 

same or lower than missiles described 

above or previously launched from the 

island. 

Vessel Movement 

The number and type of scheduled 

Navy vessels or Navy support vessels 

operating within the PMSR Study Area 

depends on the requirements for 

mission-essential activities, such as the 

test and evaluation of new weapon 

systems or qualification trials for 

upgraded existing ships. The types of 

Navy vessels or Navy support vessels 

operating within the PMSR are highly 

variable and range from small work 

boats used for nearshore work to major 

Navy combatants, up to and including 

aircraft carriers. Navy activities are 

conducted in large subdivisions of the 

total PMSR Study Area, and blocks of 

range times are allocated based on 

activity requirements. Most activities 

include either one or two vessels and 

may last from a few hours to two weeks. 

Vessel movement as part of the 

proposed activities would be widely 

dispersed throughout the PMSR Study 

Area. 

The PMSR Study Area military vessel 

activity can be divided into two 

categories: Project ships and support 

boats. Project ships are larger Navy 

combatant vessels, such as destroyers, 

cruisers, or any other commissioned 

Navy or foreign military ship directly 

involved in events. They may operate 

anywhere within the PMSR Study Area 

depending on activity needs, although 

most ship operations occur within 60 

nautical miles (nmi) of SNI. Most 

project ships and scheduled training 

ships operating in the PMSR Study Area 

transit there from off-range (e.g., San 

Diego). Support boats are smaller 

vessels directly involved in test 

activities and operate from the Port 

Hueneme Harbor. While they may also 

operate throughout the PMSR Study 

Area, support boat operations occur 

mainly within the range areas receiving 

the most use. Smaller support boats 

have limited range and usually operate 

close to shore near Point Mugu and SNI. 

The activity level of ships or boats is 

characterized by a ship or boat event. 

The Navy tabulated annual at-sea 

vessel steaming days for training and 

testing activities projected for the PMSR 

Study Area. Approximately 333 annual 

events of Navy at-sea vessel usage will 

occur over 2,085 hours (approximately 

87 at-sea days) in the PMSR Study Area 

(Table 4). In comparison to the Southern 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37799 

California portion (SOCAL) of the 

Hawaii-Southern California Training 

and Testing (HSTT) Study Area, the 

estimated number of annual at-sea days 

in the PMSR Study Area is less than 3 

percent of what occurs in SOCAL 

annually. 

TABLE 4—ANNUAL AT-SEA VESSEL STEAMING DAYS FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES PROJECTED FOR THE PMSR 

STUDY AREA

Vessel Ship type 

Proposed activity 

Events Hours 

CG ................................................................................ Guided Missile Cruiser ................................................. 41 275 

DDG–51 ........................................................................ Guided Missile Destroyer ............................................. 36 132 

LHA ............................................................................... Amphibious Assault Ship .............................................. 40 200 

SDTS ............................................................................ Self-Defense Test Ship ................................................ 50 190 

WMSL–751/OPC .......................................................... Coast Guard Cutter ...................................................... 6 28 

LCS Variant (LCS 1) .................................................... Littoral Combat Ship ..................................................... 40 360 

LCS Variant (LCS 2) .................................................... 40 360 

FF ................................................................................. Future Frigate ............................................................... 40 360 

DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class ............................................ Guided Missile Destroyer ............................................. 3 30 

LHD ............................................................................... Amphibious Assault Ship .............................................. 4 13 

LPD ............................................................................... Amphibious Transport Deck ......................................... 4 13 

LSD ............................................................................... Dock Landing Ship ....................................................... 4 13 

CVN .............................................................................. Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier ................................. 6 16 

SSBN ............................................................................ Ballistic Missile Submarine ........................................... 19 95 

Total ....................................................................... 333 2,085 

Additional details on Navy at-sea 

vessel movement are provided in the 

2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS. 

Standard Operating Procedures 

For training and testing to be 

effective, personnel must be able to 

safely use their sensors and weapon 

systems as they are intended to be used 

in military missions and combat 

operations and to their optimum 

capabilities. Navy publishes or 

broadcasts standard operating 

procedures via numerous naval 

instructions and manuals, including but 

not limited to the following: 

• Ship, submarine, and aircraft safety 

manuals; 

• Ship, submarine, and aircraft 

standard operating manuals; 

• Fleet Area Control and Surveillance 

Facility range operating instructions; 

• Fleet exercise publications and 

instruction; 

• Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons 

Division (NAWCWD) and Naval Sea 

Systems Command test range safety and 

standard operating instructions; 

• Navy instrumented range operating 

procedures; 

• Naval shipyard sea trial agendas; 

• Research, development, test, and 

evaluation plans; 

• Naval gunfire safety instructions; 

• Navy planned maintenance system 

instructions and requirements; 

• Federal Aviation Administration 

regulations; 

• International Regulations for 

Preventing Collisions at Sea; 

• Range safety standard operating 

procedures and instructions for 

explosive munitions; and 

• Ammunition and Explosive 

Operations standard operating 

procedures. 

Because standard operating 

procedures are essential to safety and 

mission success, the Navy considers 

them to be part of the proposed 

Specified Activities, and has included 

them in the environmental analysis (see 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences, of the 

2020 PMSR DSEIS/OEIS for further 

details). 

Description of Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat in the Area of the 

Specified Activities 

Marine mammal species that have the 

potential to occur in the PMSR Study 

Area are presented in Table 5 along with 

an abundance estimate, an associated 

coefficient of variation value, and best 

and minimum abundance estimates. 

The Navy requests authorization to take 

individuals of marine mammal species 

by Level A and Level B harassment 

incidental to training and testing 

activities from detonations of explosives 

occurring at or near the surface and 

launch activities on SNI (Table 5). 

Information on the status, 

distribution, abundance, population 

trends, habitat, and ecology of marine 

mammals in the PSMR Study Area also 

may be found in Section 4 of the Navy’s 

rulemaking/LOA application. NMFS 

reviewed this information and found it 

to be accurate and complete. Additional 

information on the general biology and 

ecology of marine mammals is included 

in the 2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS. Table 5 

incorporates data from the U.S. Pacific 

and the Alaska Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; Carretta et 

al., 2019; Muto et al., 2019) and the 

most recent revised data in the draft 

SARs (see https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports). Table 5 also incorporates the 

best available science, including 

monitoring data from the Navy’s marine 

mammal research efforts. 

Species Not Included in the Analysis 

The species carried forward for 

analysis (and described in Table 5 

below) are those likely to be found in 

the PMSR Study Area based on the most 

recent data available, and do not 

include species that may have once 

inhabited or transited the area but have 

not been sighted in recent years (e.g., 

species which were extirpated from 

factors such as 19th and 20th century 

commercial exploitation). Several 

species that may be present in the 

northwest Pacific Ocean have a low 

probability of presence in the PMSR 

Study Area. These species are 

considered extralimital (not anticipated 

to occur in the Study Area) or rare 

(occur in the Study Area sporadically, 

but sightings are rare). Species unlikely 

to be present in the PMSR Study Area 

or that are rare include the North Pacific 

right whale (Eubalaena japonica), 

rough-toothed dolphin (Steno 

bredanensis), and Steller sea lion 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37800 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

(Eumetopias jubatus), and these species 

have all been excluded from subsequent 

analysis for the reasons described 

below. There have been only four 

sightings, each of a single Northern 

Pacific right whale, in Southern 

California waters over approximately 

the last 30 years (in 1988, 1990, 1992, 

and 2017) (Brownell et al., 2001; 

Carretta et al., 1994; National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2017b; WorldNow, 

2017). Sightings off California are rare, 

and historically, even during the period 

of U.S. West Coast whaling through the 

1800s, right whales were considered 

uncommon to rare off California (Reeves 

and Smith, 2010; Scammon, 1874). The 

range of the rough-toothed dolphin is 

known to occasionally include the 

Southern California coast during 

periods of warmer ocean temperatures, 

but there is no recognized stock for the 

U.S. West Coast (Carretta et al., 2019c). 

Several strandings were documented for 

this species in central and Southern 

California between 1977 and 2002 

(Zagzebski et al., 2006), but this species 

has not been observed during seven 

systematic ship surveys from 1991 to 

2014 off the U.S. West Coast (Barlow, 

2016). During 16 quarterly ship surveys 

off Southern California from 2004 to 

2008, there was one encounter with a 

group of nine rough-toothed dolphins, 

which was considered an extralimital 

occurrence (Douglas et al., 2014). Steller 

sea lions range along the north Pacific 

from northern Japan to California 

(Perrin et al., 2009b), with centers of 

abundance and distribution in the Gulf 

of Alaska and Aleutian Islands (Muto et 

al., 2019). San Miguel Island and Santa 

Rosa Island were, in the past, the 

southernmost rookeries and haulouts for 

the Steller sea lions, but their range 

contracted northward in the 20th 

century, and now An ̃ o Nuevo Island off 

central California is currently the 

southernmost rookery (Muto et al., 

2019; National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2008; Pitcher et al., 2007). Steller sea 

lions pups were known to be born at 

San Miguel Island up until 1981 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2008; Pitcher et al., 2007), and so, as the 

population continues to increase, it is 

anticipated that the Steller sea lions 

may re-establish a breeding colony on 

San Miguel Island in the future. In the 

Channel Islands and vicinity, despite 

the species’ general absence from the 

area, a consistent but small number of 

Steller sea lions (one to two individuals 

at a time) have been sighted in recent 

years. Aerial surveys for pinnipeds in 

the Channel Islands from 2011 to 2015 

encountered a single Steller sea lion at 

SNI in 2013 (Lowry et al., 2017). NMFS 

agrees with the Navy’s assessment that 

these species are unlikely to occur in 

the PMSR Study Area and they are not 

discussed further. 

Southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris 

neris) occurs nearshore off the coast of 

central California, ranging from Half 

Moon Bay in the north to Point 

Conception and at SNI (Tinker et al., 

2006; Tinker and Hatfield, 2016; U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2014). Southern sea 

otters are managed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and therefore are not 

discussed further. 

TABLE 5—MARINE MAMMAL OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE PMSR STUDY AREA

Common name Scientific name 1 Stock 

Status Stock abundance 

(CV)/Nmin; most 

recent abundance 

survey 2

PBR 3 Annual 

M/SI 4

MMPA ESA 

Blue whale ..................... Balaenoptera musculus Eastern North Pacific .. Depleted ............... Endangered ......... 1,496 (0.44)/1,051; 

2014.

1.2 ≥19.4 

Bryde’s whale ................ Balaenoptera brydei/ 

edeni.

Eastern Tropical Pacific .............................. .............................. unk; na ................. unk unk 

Fin whale ....................... Balaenoptera physalus California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

Depleted ............... Endangered ......... 9,029 (0.12)/8,127; 

2014.

81 ≥43.7 

Gray whale ..................... Eschrichtius robustus .. Eastern North Pacific .. .............................. .............................. 26,960 (0.05)/ 

25,849; 2016.

801 131 

Western North Pacific Depleted ............... Endangered ......... 290 (na)/271; 

2016.

0.12 unk 

Humpback whale ........... Megaptera 

novaeangliae.

California, Oregon, 

Washington.

Depleted ............... Threatened/Endangered 1.

2,900 (0.05)/2,784; 

2019.

16.7 ≥42.1 

Minke whale ................... Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata.

California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

.............................. .............................. 636 (0.72)/369; 

2014.

3.5 ≥1.3 

Sei whale ....................... Balaenoptera borealis Eastern North Pacific .. Depleted ............... Endangered ......... 519 (0.4)/374; 

2014.

0.75 ≥0.2 

Baird’s beaked whale .... Berardius bairdii .......... California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

.............................. .............................. 2,697 (0.6)/1,633; 

2014.

16 0 

Common Bottlenose dolphin.Tursiops truncatus ....... California Coastal ........ .............................. .............................. 453 (0.06)/346; 

2011.

2.7 ≥2.0 

California, Oregon, and 

Washington Offshore.

.............................. .............................. 1,924 (0.54)/1,255; 

2014.

11 ≥1.6 

Cuvier’s beaked whale .. Ziphius cavirostris ........ California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

.............................. .............................. 3,274 (0.67)/2,059; 

2014.

21 <0.1 

Dall’s porpoise ............... Phocoenoides dalli ...... California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

.............................. .............................. 25,750 (0.45)/ 

17,954; 2014.

172 0.3 

Dwarf sperm whale ........ Kogia sima ................... California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

.............................. .............................. unk; 2014 ............. und 0 

Harbor Porpoise ............. Phocoena phocoena ... Morro Bay .................... .............................. .............................. 2,917 5 (0.41)/ 

1,384; 2012.

5 66 5 ≥0.4 

Killer whale .................... Orcinus orca ................ Eastern North Pacific 

Offshore.

.............................. .............................. 300 (0.10)/276; 

2012.

2.8 0 

Eastern North Pacific 

Transient/West 

Coast Transient 6.

.............................. .............................. 349 na/349; 2018 3.5 0.4 

Long-beaked common 

dolphin.

Delphinus capensis ..... California ..................... .............................. .............................. 101,305 (0.49)/ 

68,432; 2014.

657 ≥35.4 

Mesoplodont beaked 

whales 7.

Mesoplodon spp .......... California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

.............................. .............................. 3,044 (0.54)/1,967; 

2014.

20 0.1 

Northern right whale dolphin.Lissodelphis borealis ... California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

.............................. .............................. 26,556 (0.44)/ 

18,608; 2014.

179 3.8 

Pacific white-sided dolphin.Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens.

California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

.............................. .............................. 26,814 (0.28)/ 

21,195; 2014.

191 7.5 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37801 

TABLE 5—MARINE MAMMAL OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE PMSR STUDY AREA—Continued 

Common name Scientific name 1 Stock 

Status Stock abundance 

(CV)/Nmin; most 

recent abundance 

survey 2

PBR 3 Annual 

M/SI 4

MMPA ESA 

Pygmy sperm whale ...... Kogia breviceps ........... California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

.............................. .............................. 4,111 (1.12)/1,924; 

2014.

19 0 

Risso’s dolphins ............. Grampus griseus ......... California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

.............................. .............................. 6,336 (0.32)/4,817; 

2014.

46 ≥3.7 

Short-beaked common 

dolphin.

Delphinus delphis ........ California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

.............................. .............................. 969,861 (0.17)/ 

839,325; 2014.

8,393 ≥40 

Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala 

macrorhynchus.

California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

.............................. .............................. 836 (0.79)/466; 

2014.

4.5 1.2 

Sperm whale .................. Physeter 

macrocephalus.

California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

Depleted ............... Endangered ......... 1,997 (0.57)/1,270; 

2014.

2.5 0.6 

Striped dolphin ............... Stenella coeruleoalba .. California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

.............................. .............................. 29,211 (0.20)/ 

24,782; 2014.

238 ≥0.8 

Harbor seal .................... Phoca vitulina .............. California ..................... .............................. .............................. 30,968 na/27,348; 

2012.

1,641 43 

Northern elephant seal .. Mirounga angustirostris California ..................... .............................. .............................. 179,000 na/ 

81,368; 2010.

4,882 8.8 

California sea lion .......... Zalophus californianus U.S. Stock ................... .............................. .............................. 257,606 na/ 

233,515; 2014.

14,011 ≥321 

Northern fur seal ............ Callorhinus ursinus ...... California ..................... .............................. .............................. 14,050 na/7,524; 

2013.

451 1.8 

Guadalupe fur seal ........ Arctocephalus 

townsendi.

Mexico to California ..... Depleted ............... Threatened ........... 34,187 unk/ 

31,109; 2013.

1,602 ≥3.8 

1Taxonomy follows Committee on Taxonomy (2018). 

2 CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the abundance estimate is 

presented; there may be more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the estimate. 3PBR is the Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP). 4These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, subsistence hunting, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a range. 5The abundance number as presented is from the ‘‘fine-scale transects’’ as documented in Forney et al. (2014). PBR and M/SI are from draft 2020 SAR for the Pacific (Carretta et al., 2020). 6This stock is mentioned briefly in the Pacific Stock Assessment Report and referred to as the ‘‘Eastern North Pacific Transient’’ stock, however, the Alaska Stock 

Assessment Report contains assessments of all transient killer whale stocks in the Pacific, and the Alaska Stock Assessment Report refers to this same stock as the 

‘‘West Coast Transient’’ stock (Muto et al., 2019). 7The six Mesoplodont beaked whale species off California are M. densirostris, M. carlhubbsi, M. ginkgodens, M. perrini, M. peruvianus, M. stejnegeri. 

Notes: na = not available; unk = unknown ; und = undetermined or not provided in the draft 2020 SAR for the Pacific (Carretta et al., 2020) (Carretta et al., 2019b). 

Further, after Navy completed their 

modeling analysis, the following 

species/stocks had zero calculated 

estimated takes: Bryde’s whale (Eastern 

Tropical Pacific), Gray whale (Western 

North Pacific), Sei whale (Eastern North 

Pacific), Baird’s beaked whale 

(California, Oregon, and Washington), 

Bottlenose dolphin (California Coastal), 

Cuvier’s beaked whale (California, 

Oregon, and Washington), Harbor 

Porpoise (Morro Bay), Killer whale 

(Eastern North Pacific Offshore, Eastern 

North Pacific Transient or West Coast 

Transient), Mesoplodont spp. 

(California, Oregon, and Washington), 

Short-finned pilot whale (California, 

Oregon, and Washington), and Northern 

fur seal (California). NMFS agrees with 

the Navy’s analysis; therefore, these 

species are excluded from further 

analysis. 

Below, we include additional 

information about the marine mammals 

in the area of the Specified Activities 

that informs our analysis, such as 

identifying known areas of important 

habitat or behaviors, or where Unusual 

Mortality Events (UME) have been 

designated. 

Critical Habitat 

The statutory definition of occupied 

critical habitat refers to ‘‘physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species,’’ but the 

ESA does not specifically define or 

further describe these features. ESAimplementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.02 (as amended, 84 FR 45020; 

August 27, 2019), however, define such 

features as follows: The features that 

occur in specific areas and that are 

essential to support the life-history 

needs of the species, including but not 

limited to, water characteristics, soil 

type, geological features, sites, prey, 

vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 

features. A feature may be a single 

habitat characteristic, or a more 

complex combination of habitat 

characteristics. Features may include 

habitat characteristics that support 

ephemeral or dynamic habitat 

conditions. Features may also be 

expressed in terms relating to principles 

of conservation biology, such as patch 

size, distribution distances, and 

connectivity. 

On April 21, 2021, NMFS issued a 

final rule to designate critical habitat in 

nearshore waters of the North Pacific 

Ocean for the endangered Central 

America DPS and the threatened Mexico 

DPS of humpback whales (86 FR 21082). 

Critical habitat for the Central America 

DPS and Mexico DPS was established 

within the California Current Ecosystem 

(CCE) off the coasts of California, 

Oregon, and Washington, representing 

areas of key foraging habitat. Prey of 

sufficient quality, abundance, and 

accessibility within humpback whale 

feeding areas to support feeding and 

population growth is identified an 

essential feature to the conservation of 

these whales. Because humpback 

whales only rarely feed on breeding 

grounds and during migrations, 

humpback whales must have access to 

adequate prey resources within their 

feeding areas to build up their fat stores 

and meet the nutritional and energy 

demands associated with individual 

survival, growth, reproduction, 

lactation, seasonal migrations, and other 

normal life functions. Given that each of 

three humpback whale DPSs very 

clearly rely on the feeding areas while 

within U.S. waters, prey has been 

identified as a biological feature that is 

essential to the conservation of the 

whales. The prey essential feature was 

specifically defined as follows: Prey 

species, primarily euphausiids and 

small pelagic schooling fishes of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37802 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

sufficient quality, abundance, and 

accessibility within humpback whale 

feeding areas to support feeding and 

population growth. 

NMFS considered 19 units of habitat 

as critical habitat for the listed 

humpback whale DPSs. There is overlap 

between the PMSR Study Area and 

portions of the habitat designated Units 

17 and 18 (see Figure 3.7–5 of the 2020 

PMSR DEIS/OEIS) in the final critical 

habitat rule (86 FR 21082), which are 

described below. 

Unit 17, referred to as the ‘‘Central 

California Coast Area,’’ extends from 

36°00′ N to a southern boundary at 

34°30′ N. The nearshore boundary is 

defined by the 30-m isobath, and the 

seaward boundary is drawn along the 

3,700-m isobath. This unit includes 

waters off of southern Monterey County, 

and San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara 

Counties. Unit 17 covers 6,697 nmi2 of 

marine habitat. This unit encompasses 

Morro Bay to Point Sal Biologically 

Important Area (BIA; see next section) 

and typically supports high density 

feeding aggregations of humpback 

whales from April to November 

(Calambokidis et al. 2015). Based on 

acoustic survey data collected during 

2004–2009, large krill hotspots, ranging 

from 700 km2 to 2,100 km2, occur off 

Big Sur, San Luis Obispo, and Point Sal 

(Santora et al. 2011). Hotspots with 

persistent, heightened abundance of 

krill were also reported in this unit in 

association with bathymetric submarine 

canyons (Santora et al. 2018). This is the 

northernmost portion of humpback 

whale critical habitat that overlaps with 

the PMSR Study Area. 

Unit 18, referred to as the ‘‘Channel 

Islands Area,’’ extends from a northern 

boundary at 34°30′ N to a boundary line 

that extends from Oxnard, CA seaward 

to the 3,700-m isobath, along which the 

offshore boundary is drawn. The 50-m 

isobath forms the shoreward boundary. 

This unit includes waters off of Santa 

Barbara and Ventura counties. This unit 

covers 9,799 nmi2 of marine habitat. 

This unit encompasses the Santa 

Barbara Channel-San Miguel BIA, which 

supports high density feeding 

aggregations of humpback whales 

during March through September 

(Calambokidis et al. 2015). Based on 

acoustic survey data collected during 

2004–2009, a krill hotspot of about 780 

km2 has been documented off Point 

Conception (Santora et al. 2011). Some 

additional krill hotspots have also been 

observed in this unit in association with 

bathymetric submarine canyons 

(Santora et al. 2018). Coastal waters 

managed by the Navy, as addressed 

within the Point Mugu Integrated 

Natural Resources Management Plan 

(INRMP) and SNI INRMP, are not 

included in the proposed designation as 

these areas were determined by NMFS 

to be ineligible for designation as 

critical habitat under section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA (84 FR 54354; 

October 9, 2019).The Navy does not 

anticipate national security impacts 

resulting from critical habitat 

designation in the portion of Region/ 

Unit 18 that overlaps with the PMSR 

Study Area. 

Biologically Important Areas 

Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) 

include areas of known importance for 

reproduction, feeding, or migration, or 

areas where small and resident 

populations are known to occur (Van 

Parijs, 2015). Unlike ESA critical 

habitat, these areas are not formally 

designated pursuant to any statute or 

law, but are a compilation of the best 

available science intended to inform 

impact and mitigation analyses. An 

interactive map of the BIAs may be 

found here: https://cetsound.noaa.gov/ 

biologically-important-area-map. 

BIAs off the West Coast of the 

continental United States with the 

potential to overlap portions of the 

PMSR Study Area include the following 

feeding and migration areas for blue 

whales, gray whales, and humpback 

whales and are described in further 

detail below (Calambokidis et al., 2015). 

Blue Whale Feeding BIAs 

Three blue whale feeding BIAs 

overlap with the PMSR Study Area (see 

Figure 3.7–2 of the 2020 PMSR DEIS/ 

OEIS). The Point Conception/Arguello 

to Point Sal Feeding Area and Santa 

Barbara Channel and San Miguel 

Feeding Area have large portions within 

the PMSR Study Area, 87 and 61 

percent respectively. The San Nicolas 

Island Feeding Area is entirely within 

the PMSR Study Area (Calambokidis et 

al., 2015a). Feeding by blue whales 

occurs from June through October in 

these BIAs (Calambokidis et al., 2015a). 

Gray Whale Migration BIAs 

Four gray whale migration BIAs 

overlap with the PMSR Study Area (see 

Figure 3.7–3 of the 2020 PMSR DEIS/ 

OEIS). The northward migration of the 

Eastern North Pacific stock of gray 

whales to the feeding grounds in Arctic 

waters, Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, 

and Northern California occurs in two 

phases: Northbound Phase A and 

Northbound Phase B (Calambokidis et 

al., 2015). Northbound Phase A 

migration BIA consists mainly of adults 

and juveniles that lead the beginning of 

the north-bound migration from late 

January through July, peaking in April 

through July. Newly pregnant females 

go first to maximize feeding time, 

followed by adult females and males, 

and then juveniles (Jones and Swartz, 

2009). The Northbound Phase B 

migration BIA consists primarily of 

cow-calf pairs that begin their 

northward migration later (March 

through July), as they remain on the 

reproductive grounds longer to allow 

calves to strengthen and rapidly 

increase in size before the northward 

migration (Jones and Swartz, 2009; 

Urban-Ramirez et al., 2003). The 

Potential presence migration BIA 

(January through July; October through 

December) and the Southbound—All 

migration BIA (October through March) 

routes pass through the waters of the 

PMSR Study Area. 

Humpback Whale Feeding BIAs 

Two humpback whale feeding areas 

overlap with the PMSR Study Area 

(Calambokidis et al., 2015) (see Figure 

3.7–4 of the 2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS). 

These BIAs include the Morro Bay to 

Point Sal feeding area (April through 

November) and the Santa Barbara 

Channel–San Miguel feeding area 

(March through September) 

(Calambokidis et al., 2015). The 

majority of these BIAs overlap with the 

PMSR Study Area (approximately 75 

percent). 

National Marine Sanctuaries 

Under Title III of the Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act of 1972 (also known as the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA)), 

NOAA can establish as national marine 

sanctuaries (NMS), areas of the marine 

environment with special conservation, 

recreational, ecological, historical, 

cultural, archaeological, scientific, 

educational, or aesthetic qualities. 

Sanctuary regulations prohibit or 

regulate activities that could destroy, 

cause the loss of, or injure sanctuary 

resources pursuant to the regulations for 

that sanctuary and other applicable law 

(15 CFR part 922). NMSs are managed 

on a site-specific basis, and each 

sanctuary has site-specific regulations. 

Most, but not all, sanctuaries have sitespecific regulatory exemptions from the 

prohibitions for certain military 

activities. Separately, section 304(d) of 

the NMSA requires Federal agencies to 

consult with the Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries whenever their 

activities are likely to destroy, cause the 

loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource. 

There are two NMSs managed by the 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

within the PMSR Study Area: The 

Channel Islands NMS and a small 

portion of the Monterey Bay NMS. The 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37803 

Channel Islands NMS is an ecosystembased managed sanctuary consisting of 

an area of 1,109 nmi2 around Anacapa 

Island, Santa Cruz Island, Santa Rosa 

Island, San Miguel Island, and Santa 

Barbara Island to the south. It 

encompasses sensitive habitats (e.g., 

kelp forest habitat, deep benthic habitat) 

and includes various shipwrecks and 

maritime heritage artifacts. The Channel 

Islands NMS waters and its remote, 

isolated position at the confluence of 

two major ocean currents support 

significant biodiversity of marine 

mammals, fish, and invertebrates. At 

least 33 species of cetaceans have been 

reported in the Channel Islands NMFS 

region with common species, including: 

Long-beaked common dolphin, shortbeaked common dolphin, Bottlenose 

dolphin, Pacific white-sided dolphin, 

Northern right whale dolphin, Risso’s 

dolphin, California gray whale, Blue 

whale, and Humpback whale. The three 

species of pinnipeds that are commonly 

found throughout or in part of the 

Channel Islands NMS include: 

California sea lion, Northern elephant 

seal, and Pacific harbor seal. About 877 

nmi2, or 79 percent of the Channel 

Island NMS, occurs within the PMSR 

Study Area (see Chapter 6 of the 2020 

PMSR DEIS/OEIS and Figure 6.1–1). 

The Monterey Bay NMS is an 

ecosystem-based managed sanctuary 

consisting of an area of 4,601 nmi2

stretching from Marin to Cambria and 

extending an average of 30 miles from 

shore. The Monterey Bay NMS contains 

extensive kelp forests and one of North 

America’s largest underwater canyons 

and closest-to-shore deep ocean 

environments. Its diverse marine 

ecosystem also includes rugged rocky 

shores, wave-swept sandy beaches and 

tranquil estuaries. These habitats 

support a variety of marine life, 

including 36 species of marine 

mammals, more than 180 species of 

seabirds and shorebirds, at least 525 

species of fishes, and an abundance of 

invertebrates and algae. Of the 36 

species of marine mammals, six are 

pinnipeds with California sea lions 

being the most common, and the 

remainder are twenty-six species of 

cetaceans. Only 19 nmi2, or less than 1 

percent of the Monterey Bay NMS, 

occurs within the PMSR Study Area (see 

Chapter 6 of the 2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS 

and Figure 6.1–1). 

Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs) 

An UME is defined under Section 

410(6) of the MMPA as a stranding that 

is unexpected; it involves a significant 

die-off of any marine mammal 

population, and demands immediate 

response. From 1991 to the present, 

there have been 14 formally recognized 

UMEs affecting marine mammals in 

California and involving species under 

NMFS’ jurisdiction. Three UMEs with 

ongoing or recently closed 

investigations in the PMSR Study Area 

that inform our analysis are discussed 

below. The California sea lion UME in 

California was closed on May 6, 2020. 

The Guadalupe fur seal UME in 

California and the gray whale UME 

along the west coast of North America 

are active and involve ongoing 

investigations. 

California Sea Lion UME 

From January 2013 through 

September 2016, a greater than expected 

number of young malnourished 

California sea lions (Zalophus 

californianus) stranded along the coast 

of California. Sea lions stranding from 

an early age (6–8 months old) through 

two years of age (hereafter referred to as 

juveniles) were consistently 

underweight without other disease 

processes detected. Of the 8,122 

stranded juveniles attributed to the 

UME, 93 percent stranded alive (n = 

7,587, with 3,418 of these released after 

rehabilitation) and 7 percent (n = 531) 

stranded dead. Several factors are 

hypothesized to have impacted the 

ability of nursing females and young sea 

lions to acquire adequate nutrition for 

successful pup rearing and juvenile 

growth. In late 2012, decreased anchovy 

and sardine recruitment (CalCOFI data, 

July 2013) may have led to nutritionally 

stressed adult females. Biotoxins were 

present at various times throughout the 

UME, and while they were not detected 

in the stranded juvenile sea lions 

(whose stomachs were empty at the time 

of stranding), biotoxins may have 

impacted the adult females’ ability to 

support their dependent pups by 

affecting their cognitive function (e.g., 

navigation, behavior towards their 

offspring). Therefore, the role of 

biotoxins in this UME, via its possible 

impact on adult females’ ability to 

support their pups, is unclear. The 

proposed primary cause of the UME was 

malnutrition of sea lion pups and 

yearlings due to ecological factors. 

These factors included shifts in 

distribution, abundance and/or quality 

of sea lion prey items around the 

Channel Island rookeries during critical 

sea lion life history events (nursing by 

adult females, and transitioning from 

milk to prey by young sea lions). These 

prey shifts were most likely driven by 

unusual oceanographic conditions at the 

time due to the event known as the 

‘‘Warm Water Blob’’ and El Nin ̃ o. This 

investigation closed on May 6, 2020. 

Please refer to: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-life-distress/2013-2016- 

california-sea-lion-unusual-mortalityevent-california for more information on 

this UME. 

Guadalupe Fur Seal UME 

Increased strandings of Guadalupe fur 

seals began along the entire coast of 

California in January 2015 and were 

eight times higher than the historical 

average (approximately 10 seals/yr). 

Strandings have continued since 2015 

and remained well above average 

through 2020. Numbers by year are as 

follows: 2015 (98), 2016 (76), 2017 (62), 

2018 (45), 2019 (116), 2020 (95 as of 

December 17, 2020). The total number 

of Guadalupe fur seals stranding in 

California from January 1, 2015, through 

December 17, 2020, in the UME is 492. 

Strandings of Guadalupe fur seals 

became elevated in the spring of 2019 in 

Washington and Oregon, and strandings 

for seals in these two states 

subsequently (starting from January 1, 

2019) have been added to the UME. The 

current total number of strandings in 

Washington and Oregon is 133 seals, 

including 91 in 2019 and 42 in 2020 as 

of December 17, 2020. Strandings are 

seasonal and generally peak in April 

through June of each year. The 

Guadalupe fur seal strandings involved 

the stranding of mostly weaned pups 

and juveniles (1–2 years old), with both 

live and dead strandings occurring. 

Current studies of this UME find that 

the majority of stranded animals 

experienced primary malnutrition with 

secondary bacterial and parasitic 

infections. The California portion of this 

UME was occurring in the same area 

where the 2013–2016 California sea lion 

UME occurred. This investigation is 

ongoing. Please refer to: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-life-distress/2015-2020- 

guadalupe-fur-seal-unusual-mortalityevent-california for more information on 

this UME. 

Gray Whale UME 

Since January 1, 2019, elevated levels 

of gray whale strandings have occurred 

along the west coast of North America, 

from Mexico to Canada. As of December 

17, 2020, there have been a total of 385 

strandings along the coasts of the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico, with 201 of 

those strandings occurring along the 

U.S. coast. Of the strandings on the U.S. 

coast, 93 have occurred in Alaska, 47 in 

Washington, 9 in Oregon, and 52 in 

California. Partial necropsy 

examinations conducted on a subset of 

stranded whales have shown evidence 

of poor to thin body condition, killer 

whale predation, and human 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37804 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

interactions. As part of the UME 

investigation process, NOAA is 

assembling an independent team of 

scientists to coordinate with the 

Working Group on Marine Mammal 

UMEs to review the data collected, 

sample stranded whales, and determine 

the next steps for the investigation. 

Please refer to: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-life-distress/2019-2020-graywhale-unusual-mortality-event-alongwest-coast. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary of 

the ways that components of the 

specified activity may impact marine 

mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

section later in this rule includes a 

quantitative analysis of the number of 

instances of take that could occur from 

these activities. The Preliminary 

Analysis and Negligible Impact 

Determination section considers the 

content of this section, the Estimated 

Take of Marine Mammals section, and 

the Proposed Mitigation Measures 

section to draw conclusions regarding 

the likely impacts of these activities on 

the reproductive success or survivorship 

of individuals and whether those 

impacts on individuals are likely to 

adversely affect the species through 

effects on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. 

The Navy has requested authorization 

for the take of marine mammals that 

may occur incidental to training and 

testing activities in the PMSR Study 

Area. The Navy analyzed potential 

impacts to marine mammals from 

explosive sources, target and missile 

launches from SNI, and from vessel use 

in its rulemaking/LOA application. 

NMFS carefully reviewed the 

information provided by the Navy along 

with independently reviewing 

applicable scientific research and 

literature and other information to 

evaluate the potential effects of the 

Navy’s activities on marine mammals. 

Other potential impacts to marine 

mammals from training and testing 

activities in the PMSR Study Area were 

analyzed in the 2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS, 

in consultation with NMFS as a 

cooperating agency. In particular, the 

Navy determined that these activities 

were unlikely to result in any incidental 

take from vessel strike or in any serious 

injury or mortality from explosive 

detonations (discussed in this section 

below), and the Navy has not requested 

authorizations of any such incidental 

take. NMFS agrees with these 

determinations by the Navy. 

Accordingly, in this proposed rule 

NMFS’ analysis focuses on the potential 

effects on marine mammals from the 

activity components that may cause the 

take of marine mammals: Exposure to 

explosive stressors and launches. 

For the purpose of MMPA incidental 

take authorizations, NMFS’ effects 

assessments serve four primary 

purposes: (1) To determine whether the 

specified activities would have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals (based on 

whether it is likely that the activities 

would adversely affect the species or 

stocks through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival); (2) to 

determine whether the specified 

activities would have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stocks for subsistence uses; 

(3) to prescribe the permissible methods 

of taking (i.e., Level B harassment 

(behavioral disturbance, incurred 

directly or as a result of temporary 

threshold shift (TTS)), and Level A 

harassment (permanent threshold shift 

(PTS) and non-auditory injury)), 

including identification of the number 

and types of take that could occur by 

harassment, serious injury, or mortality, 

and to prescribe other means of effecting 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

the species or stocks and their habitat 

(i.e., mitigation measures); and (4) to 

prescribe requirements pertaining to 

monitoring and reporting. 

Marine mammals may be affected by 

Navy activities by sensory impairment 

(permanent and temporary threshold 

shifts and acoustic masking), 

physiological responses (particular 

stress responses), direct behavioral 

disturbance, or habitat effects. The 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

section discusses how the potential 

effects on marine mammals from the 

impulsive acoustic sources considered 

in this rule relate to the MMPA 

definitions of Level A harassment and 

Level B harassment, and quantifies 

those effects that rise to the level of a 

take. The Preliminary Analysis and 

Negligible Impact Determination section 

assesses whether the proposed 

authorized take would have a negligible 

impact on the affected species and 

stocks. 

Sections 6, 7, and 9 of the Navy’s 

application include summaries of the 

ways that components of the specified 

activity may impact marine mammals 

and their habitat, including specific 

discussion of potential effects to marine 

mammals from noise and other stressors 

produced through the use explosives 

detonating at or near the surface and 

noise from launch events on SNI. We 

have reviewed the Navy’s discussion of 

potential effects for accuracy and 

completeness in its application and 

refer to that information rather than 

repeating it in full here. Below we 

include a summary of the potential 

effects to marine mammals. 

Additionally, NMFS has included a 

comprehensive discussion of the 

potential effects of similar activities on 

marine mammals, including specifically 

from Navy testing and training exercises 

that use explosives, in other Federal 

Register notices. For additional detail, 

we refer the reader to these notices; 

please see, 85 FR 72312 (November 9, 

2020) (Navy testing and training, 

including explosives); 84 FR 28462 

(June 12, 2019) (Navy IHA on target and 

missile launches from SNI); and 79 FR 

32678 (June 6, 2014) (Navy previous 

rule on target and missile launches from 

SNI), or view documents available 

online at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-militaryreadiness-activities. 

Below we provide a brief technical 

background on sound, on the 

characteristics of certain sound types, 

and on metrics used in this proposal, as 

well as a brief overview of the potential 

effects to marine mammals associated 

with the Navy’s proposed activities. The 

proposed training and testing exercises 

have the potential to cause take of 

marine mammals by exposing them to 

impulsive noise and pressure waves 

generated by explosive detonation at or 

near the surface of the water as well as 

by impulsive noise target and missile 

launches from SNI. Exposure to noise or 

pressure resulting from these 

detonations and launches could result 

in non-lethal injury (Level A 

harassment) or disturbance (Level B 

harassment). The potential effects of 

impulsive sound and pressure from the 

proposed training and testing activities 

may include one or more of the 

following: Tolerance, masking, 

disturbance, hearing threshold shift, and 

stress responses. In addition, NMFS also 

considered the potential for harassment 

from vessels and serious injury and 

mortality from explosive detonations. 

Description of Sound Sources 

This section contains a brief technical 

background on sound, on the 

characteristics of certain sound types, 

and on metrics used in this proposal 

inasmuch as the information is relevant 

to the specified activity and to a 

discussion of the potential effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

found later in this document. For 

general information on sound and its 

interaction with the marine 

environment, please see, e.g., Au and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37805 

Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. 

(1995); Urick (1983). 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in hertz or 

cycles per second. Wavelength is the 

distance between two peaks or 

corresponding points of a sound wave 

(length of one cycle). Higher frequency 

sounds have shorter wavelengths than 

lower frequency sounds, and typically 

attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, 

except in certain cases in shallower 

water. Amplitude is the height of the 

sound pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’ 

of a sound and is typically described 

using the relative unit of the decibel 

(dB). A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB 

is described as the ratio between a 

measured pressure and a reference 

pressure (for underwater sound, this is 

1 microPascal (mPa)), and is a 

logarithmic unit that accounts for large 

variations in amplitude. Therefore, a 

relatively small change in dB 

corresponds to large changes in sound 

pressure. The source level (SL) 

represents the SPL referenced at a 

distance of 1 m from the source 

(referenced to 1 mPa), while the received 

level is the SPL at the listener’s position 

(referenced to 1 mPa). 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. Root mean 

square is calculated by squaring all of 

the sound amplitudes, averaging the 

squares, and then taking the square root 

of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean 

square accounts for both positive and 

negative values; squaring the pressures 

makes all values positive so that they 

may be accounted for in the summation 

of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). This measurement is often used 

in the context of discussing behavioral 

effects, in part because behavioral 

effects, which often result from auditory 

cues, may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

Sound exposure level (SEL; 

represented as dB re 1 mPa2-s) represents 

the total energy in a stated frequency 

band over a stated time interval or event 

and considers both intensity and 

duration of exposure. The per-pulse SEL 

is calculated over the time window 

containing the entire pulse (i.e., 100 

percent of the acoustic energy). SEL is 

a cumulative metric; it can be 

accumulated over a single pulse, or 

calculated over periods containing 

multiple pulses. Cumulative SEL 

represents the total energy accumulated 

by a receiver over a defined time 

window or during an event. Peak sound 

pressure (also referred to as zero-to-peak 

sound pressure or 0-pk) is the maximum 

instantaneous sound pressure 

measurable in the water at a specified 

distance from the source and is 

represented in the same units as the rms 

sound pressure. When underwater 

objects vibrate or activity occurs, soundpressure waves are created. These waves 

alternately compress and decompress 

the water as the sound wave travels. 

Underwater sound waves radiate in a 

manner similar to ripples on the surface 

of a pond and may be either directed in 

a beam or beams or may radiate in all 

directions (omnidirectional sources), as 

is the case for sound produced by the 

pile driving activity considered here. 

The compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

aquatic life and man-made sound 

receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound, which is defined as 

environmental background sound levels 

lacking a single source or point 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The sound 

level of a region is defined by the total 

acoustical energy being generated by 

known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

wind and waves, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging, 

construction) sound. A number of 

sources contribute to ambient sound, 

including wind and waves, which are a 

main source of naturally occurring 

ambient sound for frequencies between 

200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In 

general, ambient sound levels tend to 

increase with increasing wind speed 

and wave height. Precipitation can 

become an important component of total 

sound at frequencies above 500 Hz, and 

possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 

times. Marine mammals can contribute 

significantly to ambient sound levels, as 

can some fish and snapping shrimp. The 

frequency band for biological 

contributions is from approximately 12 

Hz to over 100 kHz. Sources of ambient 

sound related to human activity include 

transportation (surface vessels), 

dredging and construction, oil and gas 

drilling and production, geophysical 

surveys, sonar, and explosions. Vessel 

noise typically dominates the total 

ambient sound for frequencies between 

20 and 300 Hz. In general, the 

frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are 

below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency 

sound levels are created, they attenuate 

rapidly. The sum of the various natural 

and anthropogenic sound sources that 

comprise ambient sound at any given 

location and time depends not only on 

the source levels (as determined by 

current weather conditions and levels of 

biological and human activity) but also 

on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 decibels (dB) from day to day 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. Details of source types are 

described in the following text. 

Sounds are often considered to fall 

into one of two general types: Pulsed 

and non-pulsed (defined in the 

following). The distinction between 

these two sound types is important 

because they have differing potential to 

cause physical effects, particularly with 

regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in 

Southall et al., 2007). Please see 

Southall et al. (2007) and NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

Underwater Thresholds for Onset of 

Permanent and Temporary Threshold 

Shift (Acoustic Technical Guidance) 

(NMFS, 2018) for an in-depth 

discussion of these concepts. The 

distinction between these two sound 

types is not always obvious, as certain 

signals share properties of both pulsed 

and non-pulsed sounds. A signal near a 

source could be categorized as a pulse, 

but due to propagation effects as it 

moves farther from the source, the 

signal duration becomes longer (e.g., 

Greene and Richardson, 1988). 

Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 

1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and 

occur either as isolated events or 

repeated in some succession. Pulsed 

sounds are all characterized by a 

relatively rapid rise from ambient 

pressure to a maximal pressure value 

followed by a rapid decay period that 

may include a period of diminishing, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37806 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

oscillating maximal and minimal 

pressures, and generally have an 

increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. 

Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995; 

NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonpulsed sounds can be transient signals 

of short duration but without the 

essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid 

rise time). Examples of non-pulsed 

sounds include those produced by 

vessels, aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems. 

The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

Serious Injury or Mortality From 

Explosive Detonations 

Serious injury or mortality to marine 

mammals from explosive detonations 

would consist of primary blast injury, 

which refers to those injuries that result 

from the compression of a body exposed 

to a blast wave and is usually observed 

as barotrauma of gas-containing 

structures (e.g., lung and gut) and 

structural damage to the auditory 

system (Greaves et al., 1943; Office of 

the Surgeon General, 1991; Richmond et 

al., 1973). The near instantaneous high 

magnitude pressure change near an 

explosion can injure an animal where 

tissue material properties significantly 

differ from the surrounding 

environment, such as around air-filled 

cavities in the lungs or gastrointestinal 

(GI) tract. The gas-containing organs 

(lungs and GI tract) are most vulnerable 

to primary blast injury. Severe injuries 

to these organs are presumed to result 

in mortality (e.g., severe lung damage 

may introduce air into the 

cardiopulmonary vascular system, 

resulting in lethal air emboli). Large 

pressure changes at tissue-air interfaces 

in the lungs and GI tract may cause 

tissue rupture, resulting in a range of 

injuries depending on degree of 

exposure. Recoverable injuries would 

include slight lung injury, such as 

capillary interstitial bleeding, and 

contusions to the GI tract. More severe 

injuries, such as tissue lacerations, 

major hemorrhage, organ rupture, or air 

in the chest cavity (pneumothorax), 

would significantly reduce fitness and 

likely cause death in the wild. Rupture 

of the lung may also introduce air into 

the vascular system, producing air 

emboli that can cause a stroke or heart 

attack by restricting oxygen delivery to 

critical organs. Susceptibility would 

increase with depth, until normal lung 

collapse (due to increasing hydrostatic 

pressure) and increasing ambient 

pressures again reduce susceptibility. 

The Navy performed a quantitative 

analysis (refer to the Navy’s Acoustic 

Effects Model section) to estimate the 

probability that marine mammals could 

be exposed to the sound and energy 

from explosions during Navy testing 

and training activities and the effects of 

those exposures. The effects of 

underwater explosions on marine 

mammals depend on a variety of factors 

including animal size and depth; charge 

size and depth; depth of the water 

column; and distance between the 

animal and the charge. In general, an 

animal would be less susceptible to 

injury near the water surface because 

the pressure wave reflected from the 

water surface would interfere with the 

direct path pressure wave, reducing 

positive pressure exposure. There are no 

explosives detonated underwater for the 

proposed activities, and those that 

detonate at or near the surface of the 

water are unlikely to transfer energy 

underwater sufficient to result in nonauditory injury (GI injury or lung injury) 

or mortality. NMFS agrees with the 

Navy’s analysis that no mortality or 

serious injury from tissue damage in the 

form of GI injury or lung injury is 

anticipated to result from the proposed 

activities. The Navy did not request and 

NMFS does not propose it for 

authorization or discuss further. For 

additional details on the criteria for 

estimating non-auditory physiological 

impacts on marine mammals due to 

naval underwater explosions, we refer 

the reader to the report, Criteria and 

Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and 

Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) 

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017e). 

Hearing Loss—Threshold Shift 

Marine mammals exposed to highintensity sound, or to lower-intensity 

sound for prolonged periods, can 

experience hearing threshold shift, 

which is the loss of hearing sensitivity 

at certain frequency ranges after 

cessation of sound (Finneran, 2015). 

Threshold shift can be permanent (PTS), 

in which case the loss of hearing 

sensitivity is not fully recoverable, or 

temporary (TTS), in which case the 

animal’s hearing threshold would 

recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). 

Irreparable damage to the inner or outer 

cochlear hair cells may cause PTS; 

however, other mechanisms are also 

involved, such as exceeding the elastic 

limits of certain tissues and membranes 

in the middle and inner ears and 

resultant changes in the chemical 

composition of the inner ear fluids 

(Southall et al., 2007). PTS is 

considered an injury and Level A 

harassment while TTS is considered to 

be Level B harassment and not 

considered an injury. 

Hearing loss, or threshold shift (TS), 

is typically quantified in terms of the 

amount (in decibels [dB]) that hearing 

thresholds at one or more specified 

frequencies are elevated, compared to 

their pre-exposure values, at some 

specific time after the noise exposure. 

The amount of TS measured usually 

decreases with increasing recovery 

time—the amount of time that has 

elapsed since a noise exposure. If the TS 

eventually returns to zero (i.e., the 

hearing threshold returns to the preexposure value), the threshold shift is 

called a TTS. If the TS does not 

completely recover (the threshold 

remains elevated compared to the preexposure value), the remaining TS is a 

PTS. 

Hearing loss has only been studied in 

a few species of marine mammals, 

although hearing studies with terrestrial 

mammals are also informative. There 

are no direct measurements of hearing 

loss in marine mammals due to 

exposure to explosive sources. The 

sound resulting from an explosive 

detonation is considered an impulsive 

sound and shares important qualities 

(i.e., short duration and fast rise time) 

with other impulsive sounds such as 

those produced by air guns. General 

research findings regarding TTS and 

PTS in marine mammals, as well as 

findings specific to exposure to other 

impulsive sound sources, are discussed 

in Section 6.4.1.2, (Loss of Hearing 

Sensitivity and Auditory Injury) of the 

Navy’s application. 

Marine mammal TTS data from 

impulsive sources are limited to two 

studies with measured TTS of 6 dB or 

more: Finneran et al. (2002) reported 

behaviorally measured TTSs of 6 and 7 

dB in a beluga exposed to single 

impulses from a seismic water gun, and 

Lucke et al. (2009) reported Audioevoked Potential measured TTS of 7–20 

dB in a harbor porpoise exposed to 

single impulses from a seismic air gun. 

In addition to these data, Kastelein et 

al. (2015a) reported behaviorally 

measured mean TTS of 4 dB at 8 kHz 

and 2 dB at 4 kHz after a harbor 

porpoise was exposed to a series of 

impulsive sounds produced by 

broadcasting underwater recordings of 

impact pile driving strikes through 

underwater sound projectors. The 

cumulative SEL was approximately 180 

decibels referenced to 1 micropascal 

squared seconds (dB re 1 mPa2s). The 

pressure waveforms for the simulated 

pile strikes exhibited significant 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37807 

‘‘ringing’’ not present in the original 

recordings, and most of the energy in 

the broadcasts was between 500 and 800 

Hz. As a result, some questions exist 

regarding whether the fatiguing signals 

were representative of underwater 

pressure signatures from impact pile 

driving. 

Several impulsive noise exposure 

studies have also been conducted 

without behaviorally measurable TTS. 

Specifically, Finneran et al. (2000) 

exposed dolphins and belugas to single 

impulses from an ‘‘explosion 

simulator,’’ and Finneran et al. (2015) 

exposed three dolphins to sequences of 

10 impulses from a seismic air gun 

(maximum cumulative SEL = 193–195 

dB re 1 mPa2s, peak SPL = 196–210 dB 

re 1 mPa) without measurable TTS. 

Finneran et al. (2003) exposed two sea 

lions to single impulses from an arc-gap 

transducer with no measurable TTS 

(maximum unweighted SEL = 163 dB re 

1 mPa2s, peak SPL = 183 dB re 1 mPa). 

Numerous studies have directly 

examined noise-induced hearing loss in 

marine mammals from non-impulsive 

sources (see Finneran, 2015). In these 

studies, hearing thresholds were 

measured in marine mammals before 

and after exposure to intense sounds. 

The difference between the preexposure and post-exposure thresholds 

was then used to determine the amount 

of TTS at various post-exposure times. 

The major findings from these studies, 

which include the following, highlight 

general concepts that are thought to be 

applicable across all types of sounds: 

• The amount of TTS varies with the 

hearing test frequency. As the exposure 

SPL increases, the frequency at which 

the maximum TTS occurs also increases 

(Kastelein et al., 2014b). For high-level 

exposures, the maximum TTS typically 

occurs one-half to one octave above the 

exposure frequency (Finneran et al., 

2007; Mooney et al., 2009a; Nachtigall 

et al., 2004; Popov et al., 2011; Popov 

et al., 2013; Schlundt et al., 2000). The 

overall spread of TTS from tonal 

exposures can therefore extend over a 

large frequency range (i.e., narrowband 

exposures can produce broadband 

[greater than one octave] TTS). 

• The amount of TTS increases with 

exposure SPL and duration and is 

correlated with sound exposure level 

(SEL), especially if the range of 

exposure durations is relatively small 

(Kastak et al., 2007; Kastelein et al., 

2014b; Popov et al., 2014). As the 

exposure duration increases, however, 

the relationship between TTS and SEL 

begins to break down. Specifically, 

duration has a more significant effect on 

TTS than would be predicted on the 

basis of SEL alone (Finneran et al., 

2010a, 2010b; Kastak et al., 2005; 

Mooney et al., 2009a). This means if two 

exposures have the same SEL but 

different durations, the exposure with 

the longer duration (thus lower SPL) 

will tend to produce more TTS than the 

exposure with the higher SPL and 

shorter duration. In most acoustic 

impact assessments, the scenarios of 

interest involve shorter duration 

exposures than the marine mammal 

experimental data from which impact 

thresholds are derived; therefore, use of 

SEL tends to overestimate the amount of 

TTS. Despite this, SEL continues to be 

used in many situations because it is 

relatively simple, more accurate than 

SPL alone, and lends itself easily to 

scenarios involving multiple exposures 

with different SPL. 

• The amount of TTS depends on the 

exposure frequency. Sounds at low 

frequencies, well below the region of 

best sensitivity, are less hazardous than 

those at higher frequencies, near the 

region of best sensitivity (Finneran and 

Schlundt, 2013). The onset of TTS— 

defined as the exposure level necessary 

to produce 6 dB of TTS (i.e., clearly 

above the typical variation in threshold 

measurements)—also varies with 

exposure frequency. At low frequencies 

onset-TTS exposure levels are higher 

compared to those in the region of best 

sensitivity. 

• TTS can accumulate across 

multiple exposures, but the resulting 

TTS will be less than the TTS from a 

single, continuous exposure with the 

same SEL (Finneran et al., 2010a; 

Kastelein et al., 2014a; Kastelein et al., 

2015b; Mooney et al., 2009b). This 

means that TTS predictions based on 

the total, cumulative SEL will 

overestimate the amount of TTS from 

intermittent exposures such as sonars 

and impulsive sources. 

• The amount of observed TTS tends 

to decrease with increasing time 

following the exposure; however, the 

relationship is not monotonic (i.e., 

increasing exposure does not always 

increase TTS). The time required for 

complete recovery of hearing depends 

on the magnitude of the initial shift; for 

relatively small shifts recovery may be 

complete in a few minutes, while large 

shifts (e.g., ∼40 dB) may require several 

days for recovery. Under many 

circumstances TTS recovers linearly 

with the logarithm of time (Finneran et 

al., 2010a, 2010b; Finneran and 

Schlundt, 2013; Kastelein et al., 2012a; 

Kastelein et al., 2012b; Kastelein et al., 

2013a; Kastelein et al., 2014a, 2014b; 

Kastelein et al., 2014c; Popov et al., 

2011; Popov et al., 2013; Popov et al., 

2014). This means that for each 

doubling of recovery time, the amount 

of TTS will decrease by the same 

amount (e.g., 6 dB recovery per 

doubling of time). 

The proposed activities include both 

TTS and a limited amount of PTS on 

some marine mammals. 

Hearing Loss from SNI Target and 

Missile Launches—Missile launches are 

characterized by sudden onset of sound, 

moderate to high peak sound levels 

(depending on the type of missile and 

distance), and short sound duration. 

Although it is possible that some 

pinnipeds may incur TTS during 

launches from SNI, hearing impairment 

has not been measured for pinniped 

species exposed to launch sounds. 

Auditory brainstem response (i.e., 

hearing assessment using measurements 

of electrical responses of the brain) was 

used to demonstrate that harbor seals 

did not exhibit loss in hearing 

sensitivity following launches of large 

rockets at Vandenberg Air Force Base 

(VAFB) (Thorson et al., 1999; Thorson 

et al., 1998). However, the hearing tests 

did not begin until at least 45 minutes 

after the launch; therefore, harbor seals 

may have incurred TTS which was 

undetectable by the time testing was 

begun. There was no sign of PTS in any 

of the harbor seals tested (Thorson et al., 

1999; Thorson et al., 1998). Since 2001, 

no launch events at SNI have exposed 

pinnipeds to noise levels at or 

exceeding those where PTS could be 

incurred. 

Based on measurements of received 

sound levels during previous launches 

at SNI (Burke 2017; Holst et al., 2010; 

Holst et al., 2005a; Holst et al., 2008; 

Holst et al., 2011; Ugoretz 2016; Ugoretz 

and Greene Jr. 2012), the Navy expects 

that there is a very limited potential of 

TTS for a few of the pinnipeds present, 

particularly for phocids. Available 

evidence from launch monitoring at SNI 

in 2001–2017 suggests that only a small 

number of launch events produced 

sound levels that could elicit TTS for 

some pinnipeds (Burke 2017; Holst et 

al., 2008; Holst et al., 2011; Ugoretz 

2016; Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 2012). In 

general, if any TTS were to occur to 

pinnipeds, it is expected to be mild and 

reversible. It is possible that some 

launch sounds as measured close to the 

launchers may exceed the permanent 

threshold shift (PTS) criteria, but it is 

not expected that any pinnipeds would 

be close enough to the launchers to be 

exposed to sounds strong enough to 

cause PTS. Due to the expected sound 

levels of the activities proposed and the 

distance of the activity from marine 

mammal habitat, the effects of sounds 

from the proposed activities are unlikely 

to result in PTS. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37808 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Physiological Stress 

There is growing interest in 

monitoring and assessing the impacts of 

stress responses to sound in marine 

animals. Classic stress responses begin 

when an animal’s central nervous 

system perceives a potential threat to its 

homeostasis. That perception triggers 

stress responses regardless of whether a 

stimulus actually threatens the animal; 

the mere perception of a threat is 

sufficient to trigger a stress response 

(Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005; 

Seyle, 1950). Once an animal’s central 

nervous system perceives a threat, it 

mounts a biological response or defense 

that consists of a combination of the 

four general biological defense 

responses: behavioral responses, 

autonomic nervous system responses, 

neuroendocrine responses, or immune 

responses. 

According to Moberg (2000), in the 

case of many stressors, an animal’s first 

and sometimes most economical (in 

terms of biotic costs) response is 

behavioral avoidance of the potential 

stressor or avoidance of continued 

exposure to a stressor. An animal’s 

second line of defense to stressors 

involves the sympathetic part of the 

autonomic nervous system and the 

classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response 

which includes the cardiovascular 

system, the gastrointestinal system, the 

exocrine glands, and the adrenal 

medulla to produce changes in heart 

rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal 

activity that humans commonly 

associate with ‘‘stress.’’ These responses 

have a relatively short duration and may 

or may not have significant long-term 

effect on an animal’s welfare. 

An animal’s third line of defense to 

stressors involves its neuroendocrine 

systems or sympathetic nervous 

systems; the system that has received 

the most study has been the 

hypothalmus-pituitary-adrenal system 

(also known as the HPA axis in 

mammals or the hypothalamuspituitary-interrenal axis in fish and 

some reptiles). Unlike stress responses 

associated with the autonomic nervous 

system, virtually all neuro-endocrine 

functions that are affected by stress— 

including immune competence, 

reproduction, metabolism, and 

behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction 

(Moberg, 1987; Rivier and Rivest, 1991), 

altered metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), 

reduced immune competence (Blecha, 

2000), and behavioral disturbance 

(Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000). Increases 

in the circulation of glucocorticosteroids 

(cortisol, corticosterone, and 

aldosterone in marine mammals; see 

Romano et al., 2004) have been equated 

with stress for many years. 

Because there are many unknowns 

regarding the occurrence of acoustically 

induced stress responses in marine 

mammals, it is assumed that any 

physiological response (e.g., hearing 

loss or injury) or significant behavioral 

response is also associated with a stress 

response. 

Auditory Masking 

Sound can disrupt behavior through 

masking, or interfering with, an animal’s 

ability to detect, recognize, or 

discriminate between acoustic signals of 

interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, or 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000; 

Erbe et al., 2016). Masking occurs when 

the receipt of a sound is interfered with 

by another coincident sound at similar 

frequencies and at similar or higher 

intensity, and may occur whether the 

sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, 

wind, waves, precipitation) or 

anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar, 

seismic exploration) in origin. As 

described in detail in the 2020 PMSR 

DSEIS/OEIS, the ability of a noise 

source to mask biologically important 

sounds depends on the characteristics of 

both the noise source and the signal of 

interest (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, 

temporal variability, direction), in 

relation to each other and to an animal’s 

hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, 

frequency range, critical ratios, 

frequency discrimination, directional 

discrimination, age, or TTS hearing 

loss), and existing ambient noise and 

propagation conditions. Masking these 

acoustic signals can disturb the behavior 

of individual animals, groups of 

animals, or entire populations. Masking 

can lead to behavioral changes 

including vocal changes (e.g., Lombard 

effect, increasing amplitude, or 

changing frequency), cessation of 

foraging, and leaving an area, to both 

signalers and receivers, in an attempt to 

compensate for noise levels (Erbe et al., 

2016). Masking only occurs in the 

presence of the masking noise and does 

not persist after the cessation of the 

noise. Masking may lead to a change in 

vocalizations or a change in behavior 

(e.g., cessation of foraging, leaving an 

area). There are no direct observations 

of masking in marine mammals due to 

exposure to sound from explosive 

detonations or launches and nor would 

they be predicted given the shorter 

duration of these sounds. 

Behavioral Disturbance 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific. 

Many different variables can influence 

an animal’s perception of and response 

to (nature and magnitude) an acoustic 

event. An animal’s prior experience 

with a sound or sound source affects 

whether it is less likely (habituation) or 

more likely (sensitization) to respond to 

certain sounds in the future (animals 

can also be innately predisposed to 

respond to certain sounds in certain 

ways) (Southall et al., 2007). Related to 

the sound itself, the perceived nearness 

of the sound, bearing of the sound 

(approaching vs. retreating), the 

similarity of a sound to biologically 

relevant sounds in the animal’s 

environment (i.e., calls of predators, 

prey, or conspecifics), and familiarity of 

the sound may affect the way an animal 

responds to the sound (Southall et al., 

2007, DeRuiter et al., 2013). Individuals 

(of different age, gender, reproductive 

status, etc.) among most populations 

will have variable hearing capabilities, 

and differing behavioral sensitivities to 

sounds that will be affected by prior 

conditioning, experience, and current 

activities of those individuals. Often, 

specific acoustic features of the sound 

and contextual variables (i.e., proximity, 

duration, or recurrence of the sound or 

the current behavior that the marine 

mammal is engaged in or its prior 

experience), as well as entirely separate 

factors such as the physical presence of 

a nearby vessel, may be more relevant 

to the animal’s response than the 

received level alone. 

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have shown 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud underwater 

sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; 

Finneran et al., 2003). These may be of 

limited relevance to the proposed 

activities given that airborne sound, and 

not underwater sound, may result in 

harassment of marine mammals as a 

result of the proposed activities; 

however we present this information as 

background on the potential impacts of 

sound on marine mammals. Observed 

responses of wild marine mammals to 

loud pulsed sound sources (typically 

seismic guns or acoustic harassment 

devices) have been varied but often 

consist of avoidance behavior or other 

behavioral changes suggesting 

discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; 

Thorson and Reyff, 2006; see also 

Gordon et al., 2004; Wartzok et al., 

2003; Nowacek et al., 2007). 

The onset of noise can result in 

temporary, short-term changes in an 

animal’s typical behavior and/or 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37809 

avoidance of the affected area. These 

behavioral changes may include: 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior; avoidance of areas 

where sound sources are located; and/ 

or flight responses (Richardson et al., 

1995). 

The biological significance of many of 

these behavioral disturbances is difficult 

to predict, especially if the detected 

disturbances appear minor. However, 

the consequences of behavioral 

modification could potentially be 

biologically significant if the change 

affects growth, survival, or 

reproduction. The onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic sound 

depends on both external factors 

(characteristics of sound sources and 

their paths) and the specific 

characteristics of the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography) and is difficult to predict 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

Ellison et al. (2012) outlined an 

approach to assessing the effects of 

sound on marine mammals that 

incorporates contextual-based factors. 

The authors recommend considering not 

just the received level of sound, but also 

the activity the animal is engaged in at 

the time the sound is received, the 

nature and novelty of the sound (i.e., is 

this a new sound from the animal’s 

perspective), and the distance between 

the sound source and the animal. They 

submit that this ‘‘exposure context,’’ as 

described, greatly influences the type of 

behavioral response exhibited by the 

animal. Forney et al. (2017) also point 

out that an apparent lack of response 

(e.g., no displacement or avoidance of a 

sound source) may not necessarily mean 

there is no cost to the individual or 

population, as some resources or 

habitats may be of such high value that 

animals may choose to stay, even when 

experiencing stress or hearing loss. 

Forney et al. (2017) recommend 

considering both the costs of remaining 

in an area of noise exposure such as 

TTS, PTS, or masking, which could lead 

to an increased risk of predation or 

other threats or a decreased capability to 

forage, and the costs of displacement, 

including potential increased risk of 

vessel strike, increased risks of 

predation or competition for resources, 

or decreased habitat suitable for 

foraging, resting, or socializing. This 

sort of contextual information is 

challenging to predict with accuracy for 

ongoing activities that occur over large 

spatial and temporal expanses. 

However, distance is one contextual 

factor for which data exist to 

quantitatively inform a take estimate, 

and the method for predicting Level B 

harassment in this proposed rule does 

consider distance to the source. Other 

factors are often considered 

qualitatively in the analysis of the likely 

consequences of sound exposure, where 

supporting information is available. 

Exposure of marine mammals to 

sound sources can result in, but is not 

limited to, no response or any of the 

following observable responses: 

Increased alertness; orientation or 

attraction to a sound source; vocal 

modifications; cessation of feeding; 

cessation of social interaction; alteration 

of movement or diving behavior; habitat 

abandonment (temporary or permanent); 

and, in severe cases, panic, flight, 

stampede, or stranding, potentially 

resulting in death (Southall et al., 2007). 

A review of marine mammal responses 

to anthropogenic sound was first 

conducted by Richardson (1995). More 

recent reviews (Nowacek et al., 2007; 

DeRuiter et al., 2012 and 2013; Ellison 

et al., 2012; Gomez et al., 2016) address 

studies conducted since 1995 and 

focused on observations where the 

received sound level of the exposed 

marine mammal(s) was known or could 

be estimated. Gomez et al. (2016) 

conducted a review of the literature 

considering the contextual information 

of exposure in addition to received level 

and found that higher received levels 

were not always associated with more 

severe behavioral responses and vice 

versa. Southall et al. (2016) states that 

results demonstrate that some 

individuals of different species display 

clear yet varied responses, some of 

which have negative implications, while 

others appear to tolerate high levels, and 

that responses may not be fully 

predictable with simple acoustic 

exposure metrics (e.g., received sound 

level). Rather, the authors state that 

differences among species and 

individuals along with contextual 

aspects of exposure (e.g., behavioral 

state) appear to affect response 

probability. 

During an activity with a series of 

explosions (not concurrent multiple 

explosions shown in a burst), an animal 

is expected to exhibit a startle reaction 

to the sound of the first detonation 

followed by another behavioral response 

after multiple detonations. At close 

ranges and high sound levels, avoidance 

of the area around the explosions is the 

assumed behavioral response in most 

cases. In certain circumstances, 

exposure to loud sounds can interrupt 

feeding behaviors and potentially 

decrease foraging success, interfere with 

communication or migration, or disrupt 

important reproductive or young-rearing 

behaviors, among other effects. 

Behavioral Disturbance from SNI 

Target and Missile Launches— 

Pinnipeds may be exposed to airborne 

sounds that have the potential to result 

in behavioral harassment, depending on 

an animal’s distance from the sound and 

the type of missile being launched. 

Sound could cause hauled out 

pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their 

normal behavior, such as temporarily 

abandoning their habitat. 

Responses of pinnipeds on beaches 

exposed to acoustic disturbance arising 

from launches are highly variable. 

Harbor seals can be more reactive when 

hauled out compared to other species, 

such as northern elephant seals. 

Northern elephant seals generally 

exhibit no reaction at all, except 

perhaps a heads-up response or some 

stirring. If northern elephant seals do 

react, it may occur if California sea lions 

are in the same area mingled with the 

northern elephant seals and the sea 

lions react strongly. Responsiveness also 

varies with time of year and age class, 

with juvenile pinnipeds being more 

likely to react by leaving the haulout 

site. The probability and type of 

behavioral response will also depend on 

the season, the group composition of the 

pinnipeds, and the type of activity in 

which they are engaged. For example, in 

some cases, harbor seals at SNI appear 

to be more responsive during the 

pupping/breeding season (Holst et al. 

2005a; Holst et al. 2008), while in 

others, mothers and pups seem to react 

less to launches than lone individuals 

(Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 2012), and 

California sea lions seem to be 

consistently less responsive during the 

pupping season (Holst et al. 2010; Holst 

et al. 2005a; Holst et al. 2008; Holst et 

al. 2011; Holst et al. 2005b; Ugoretz and 

Greene Jr. 2012). Though pup 

abandonment could theoretically result 

from these reactions, site-specific 

monitoring data indicate that pup 

abandonment is not likely to occur as a 

result of the specified activity because it 

has not been previously observed. While 

the reactions are variable, and can 

involve abrupt movements by some 

individuals, biological impacts of these 

responses appear to be limited. The 

responses are not expected to result in 

significant injury or mortality, or longterm negative consequences to 

individuals or pinniped populations on 

SNI. 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most 

likely to habituate to sounds that are 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37810 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

predictable and unvarying. The opposite 

process is sensitization, when an 

unpleasant experience leads to 

subsequent responses, often in the form 

of avoidance, at a lower level of 

exposure. Behavioral state may affect 

the type of response as well. For 

example, animals that are resting may 

show greater behavioral change in 

response to disturbing sound levels than 

animals that are highly motivated to 

remain in an area for feeding 

(Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003; 

Wartzok et al., 2003). 

It is possible that launch-induced 

flushing or stampedes could have 

adverse impacts on individual 

pinnipeds on the west end of SNI. 

Bowles and Stewart (1980) reported that 

harbor seals on San Miguel Island 

reacted to low-altitude jet overflights 

with alert postures and often with rapid 

movement across the haulout sites, 

especially when aircraft were visible. 

However, on SNI during missile 

launches in 2001–2017, there was no 

evidence of launch noise-related 

injuries or deaths (Burke 2017; Holst et 

al. 2010; Holst et al. 2005a; Holst et al. 

2008; Holst et al. 2011; Ugoretz 2016; 

Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 2012). On several 

occasions, harbor seals and California 

sea lion adults moved near and 

sometimes over older pups (i.e., greater 

than four months old) as the animals 

moved in response to the launch noises, 

but the pups were not injured (Holst et 

al., 2010; Holst et al., 2005a; Holst et al., 

2008; Holst et al., 2011; Ugoretz and 

Greene Jr. 2012). 

Vessel Strike 

Vessel strikes from commercial, 

recreational, and military vessels are 

known to affect large whales and have 

resulted in serious injury and occasional 

fatalities to cetaceans (BermanKowalewski et al., 2010; Calambokidis, 

2012; Douglas et al., 2008; Laggner 

2009; Lammers et al., 2003). Records of 

collisions date back to the early 17th 

century, and the worldwide number of 

collisions appears to have increased 

steadily during recent decades (Laist et 

al., 2001; Ritter 2012). 

Numerous studies of interactions 

between surface vessels and marine 

mammals have demonstrated that freeranging marine mammals often, but not 

always (e.g., McKenna et al., 2015), 

engage in avoidance behavior when 

surface vessels move toward them. It is 

not clear whether these responses are 

caused by the physical presence of a 

surface vessel, the underwater noise 

generated by the vessel, or an 

interaction between the two (Amaral 

and Carlson, 2005; Au and Green, 2000; 

Bain et al., 2006; Bauer 1986; Bejder et 

al., 1999; Bejder and Lusseau, 2008; 

Bejder et al., 2009; Bryant et al., 1984; 

Corkeron, 1995; Erbe, 2002; Fe ́lix, 2001; 

Goodwin and Cotton, 2004; Lemon et 

al., 2006; Lusseau, 2003; Lusseau, 2006; 

Magalhaes et al., 2002; Nowacek et al., 

2001; Richter et al., 2003; Scheidat et 

al., 2004; Simmonds, 2005; Watkins, 

1986; Williams et al., 2002; Wursig et 

al., 1998). Several authors suggest that 

the noise generated during motion is 

probably an important factor (Blane and 

Jaakson, 1994; Evans et al., 1992; Evans 

et al., 1994). Water disturbance may also 

be a factor. These studies suggest that 

the behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to surface vessels are similar 

to their behavioral responses to 

predators. Avoidance behavior is 

expected to be even stronger in the 

subset of instances during which the 

Navy is conducting training or testing 

activities using explosives. 

The marine mammals most vulnerable 

to vessel strikes are those that spend 

extended periods of time at the surface 

in order to restore oxygen levels within 

their tissues after deep dives (e.g., sperm 

whales). In addition, some baleen 

whales seem generally unresponsive to 

vessel sound, making them more 

susceptible to vessel collisions 

(Nowacek et al., 2004). These species 

are primarily large, slow moving 

whales. 

Some researchers have suggested the 

relative risk of a vessel strike can be 

assessed as a function of animal density 

and the magnitude of vessel traffic (e.g., 

Fonnesbeck et al., 2008; Vanderlaan et 

al., 2008). Differences among vessel 

types also influence the probability of a 

vessel strike. The ability of any ship to 

detect a marine mammal and avoid a 

collision depends on a variety of factors, 

including environmental conditions, 

ship design, size, speed, and ability and 

number of personnel observing, as well 

as the behavior of the animal. Vessel 

speed, size, and mass are all important 

factors in determining if injury or death 

of a marine mammal is likely due to a 

vessel strike. For large vessels, speed 

and angle of approach can influence the 

severity of a strike. For example, 

Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) found 

that, between vessel speeds of 8.6 and 

15 knots, the probability that a vessel 

strike is lethal increases from 0.21 to 

0.79. Large whales also do not have to 

be at the water’s surface to be struck. 

Silber et al. (2010) found when a whale 

is below the surface (about one to two 

times the vessel draft), under certain 

circumstances (vessel speed and 

location of the whale relative to the 

ship’s centerline), there is likely to be a 

pronounced propeller suction effect. 

This suction effect may draw the whale 

into the hull of the ship, increasing the 

probability of propeller strikes. 

There are some key differences 

between the operation of military and 

non-military vessels, which make the 

likelihood of a military vessel striking a 

whale lower than some other vessels 

(e.g., commercial merchant vessels). Key 

differences include: 

• Many military ships have their 

bridges positioned closer to the bow, 

offering better visibility ahead of the 

ship (compared to a commercial 

merchant vessel); 

• There are often aircraft associated 

with the training or testing activity 

(which can serve as Lookouts), which 

can more readily detect cetaceans in the 

vicinity of a vessel or ahead of a vessel’s 

present course before crew on the vessel 

would be able to detect them; 

• Military ships are generally more 

maneuverable than commercial 

merchant vessels, and if cetaceans are 

spotted in the path of the ship, could be 

capable of changing course more 

quickly; 

• The crew size on military vessels is 

generally larger than merchant ships, 

allowing for stationing more trained 

Lookouts on the bridge. At all times 

when Navy vessels are underway, 

trained Lookouts and bridge navigation 

teams are used to detect objects on the 

surface of the water ahead of the ship, 

including cetaceans. Additional 

Lookouts, beyond those already 

stationed on the bridge and on 

navigation teams, are positioned as 

Lookouts during some training events; 

and 

• When submerged, submarines are 

generally slow moving (to avoid 

detection) and therefore marine 

mammals at depth with a submarine are 

likely able to avoid collision with the 

submarine. When a submarine is 

transiting on the surface, there are 

Lookouts serving the same function as 

they do on surface ships. 

While there have been vessel strikes 

documented with commercial vessels, 

NMFS has no documented vessel strikes 

of marine mammals by the Navy in the 

PMSR Study Area since the Navy 

started keeping records of ship strike in 

1995. The only large Navy vessels 

homebased in the PMSR local area (Port 

Hueneme) are the Self Defense Test 

Ship and the Mobile Ship Target, which 

are both greater than 200 ft in length. 

There are smaller vessels used either as 

targets or for target recovery as well. The 

majority of Navy vessels (e.g., LCS, 

destroyers) used during testing and 

training on the PMSR Study Area transit 

from San Diego Navy bases and 

typically transit further offshore and 

enter/exit the PMSR Study Area from 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37811 

the southwestern boundaries to avoid 

commercial vessel traffic in and out of 

the Ports or Los Angeles/Long Beach via 

the Santa Barbara Channel. 

The Navy transits at safer speeds and 

has other protective measures in place 

during transits, such as using Lookouts 

and maintaining safe distances from 

marine mammals (e.g., 500 yd (457.2 m) 

for whales and 200 yd (182.88 m) 

around other marine mammals except 

bow-riding dolphins and pinnipeds 

hauled out on man-made navigational 

structures, port structures, and vessels). 

A DoD funded study (Mintz, 2016) on 

commercial and military vessel traffic in 

Southern California found that median 

vessel speed for Navy vessels in the 

Santa Barbara Channel and nearshore 

areas of the PMSR Study Area and 

SOCAL (part of the HSTT Study Area) 

was between 3 to 8 knots. Speed 

increased as vessels transited further 

offshore, between 10–16 knots, with the 

higher value on the furthest offshore 

areas of the PMSR Study Area. 

Commercial tankers and cargo median 

vessel speeds were between 8–14 knots 

for the same nearshore areas. Mintz 

(2016) indicated that Navy vessels make 

up only 4 percent of the overall vessel 

traffic off Southern California (PMSR/ 

SOCAL). The data collected for Mintz 

(2016) was collected via AIS for 

commercial vessel data and SeaLink for 

military vessels (a classified Navy/Coast 

Guard database maintained by the 

Office of Naval Intelligence). The 

median surface speed of two of the 

classes of vessels used on the PMSR 

Study Area from 2011 through 2015 was 

below 12 knots. This median speed 

includes those training and testing 

operations that require elevated speeds, 

and being slightly above 10 knots, 

indicates that Naval vessels typically 

operate at speeds that would be 

expected to reduce the potential of 

vessel strike of a marine mammal. 

The Navy has several standard 

operating procedures for vessel safety 

that could result in a secondary benefit 

to marine mammals through a reduction 

in the potential for vessel strike. For 

example, ships operated by or for the 

Navy have personnel assigned to stand 

watch at all times, day and night, when 

moving through the water (i.e., when the 

vessel is underway). Watch personnel 

undertake extensive training in 

accordance with the U.S. Navy Lookout 

Training Handbook or civilian 

equivalent. A primary duty of watch 

personnel is to ensure safety of the ship, 

which includes the requirement to 

detect and report all objects and 

disturbances sighted in the water that 

may be indicative of a threat to the ship 

and its crew, such as debris, a 

periscope, surfaced submarine, or 

surface disturbance. Per safety 

requirements, watch personnel also 

report any marine mammals sighted that 

have the potential to be in the direct 

path of the ship, as a standard collision 

avoidance procedure. Navy vessels are 

required to operate in accordance with 

applicable navigation rules. These rules 

require that vessels proceed at a safer 

speed so proper and effective action can 

be taken to avoid collision and so 

vessels can be stopped within a distance 

appropriate to the prevailing 

circumstances and conditions. In 

addition to complying with navigation 

requirements, Navy ships transit at 

speeds that are optimal for fuel 

conservation, to maintain ship 

schedules, and to meet mission 

requirements. Vessel captains use the 

totality of the circumstances to ensure 

the vessel is traveling at appropriate 

speeds in accordance with navigation. 

This Navy message is also consistent 

with a message issued by the U.S. Coast 

Guard for vessels operating in the 11th 

district (covering the waters in and 

around the PMSR) as a Notice to 

Mariners that also informs operators 

about the presence of populations of 

blue, humpback, and fin whales in the 

area (see U.S. Coast Guard (2019) for 

further details). 

For more information, please see 

section 3.7.1.1.1 Vessels as a Strike 

Stressor in the 2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS. 

Additionally, the Navy has fewer vessel 

transits than commercial entities in the 

PMSR Study Area. To put the PMSR 

Navy vessel operations level in 

perspective, Table 6 includes an 

estimate of annual commercial shipping 

activity compared with vessel use in the 

PMSR Study Area. These annual 

estimates are representable of any given 

year as proposed for this rule. Navy 

vessels account for only about nine 

percent of the vessel traffic within the 

PMSR Study Area. 

In addition, large Navy vessels 

(greater than 18 m in length) within the 

offshore areas of range complexes and 

testing ranges operate differently from 

commercial vessels in ways that may 

reduce potential for whale collisions. 

Surface ships operated by or for the 

Navy have multiple personnel assigned 

to stand watch at all times, when a ship 

or surfaced submarine is moving 

through the water (underway). A 

primary duty of personnel standing 

watch on surface ships is to detect and 

report all objects and disturbances 

sighted in the water that may indicate 

a threat to the vessel and its crew, such 

as debris, a periscope, surfaced 

submarine, or surface disturbance. Per 

vessel safety requirements, personnel 

standing watch also report any marine 

mammals sighted in the path of the 

vessel as a standard collision avoidance 

procedure. All vessels proceed at a safer 

speed so they can take proper and 

effective action to avoid a collision with 

any sighted object or disturbance, and 

can be stopped within a distance 

appropriate to the prevailing 

circumstances and conditions. 

Between 2007 and 2009, the Navy 

developed and distributed additional 

training, mitigation, and reporting tools 

to Navy operators to improve marine 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP16JY21.003</GPH>

Table 6--Navy and Commercial Vessel Events on the PMSR Study Area 

Pf0ject5hip$ 

SUpportBoatl 

Smalt SU 8oats .. Total PMSR Navy 

Commeraat Shipping Estimate >7,a, 

1 "'Event' is defined as one trip mto the sea 111111e for an assigned mfssiOn. 

:a Total number of HSM$T$ and osnss used n support boats 

J Data colleded iS for FY15. 
37812 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

mammal protection and to ensure 

compliance with LOA requirements. In 

2009, the Navy implemented Marine 

Species Awareness Training designed to 

improve effectiveness of visual 

observation for marine resources, 

including marine mammals. For over a 

decade, the Navy has implemented the 

Protective Measures Assessment 

Protocol software tool, which provides 

operators with notification of the 

required mitigation and a visual display 

of the planned training or testing 

activity location overlaid with relevant 

environmental data. 

The Navy does not anticipate vessel 

strikes and has not requested 

authorization to take marine mammals 

by serious injury or mortality within the 

PMSR Study Area during training and 

testing activities. NMFS agrees with the 

Navy’s conclusions based on this 

qualitative analysis; therefore, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

Navy’s decision not to request take 

authorization for vessel strike of large 

whales is supported by multiple factors, 

including no previous instances of 

strikes by Navy vessels in the PMSR 

Study Area, relatively low at-sea days 

compared to other Navy training and 

testing study areas, fewer vessels used 

compared to other Navy training and 

testing study areas, ways in which the 

larger vessels operate in the PMSR 

Study Area, and the mitigation 

measures that would be in place to 

further minimize potential vessel strike. 

In addition to the reasons listed above 

that make it unlikely that the Navy will 

hit a large whale (more maneuverable 

ships, larger crew, etc.), the following 

are additional reasons that vessel strike 

of dolphins and small whales is very 

unlikely. Dating back more than 20 

years and for as long as it has kept 

records, the Navy has no records of 

individuals of these groups being struck 

by a vessel as a result of Navy activities 

and, further, their smaller size and 

maneuverability make a strike unlikely. 

Also, NMFS has never received any 

reports from other authorized activities 

indicating that these species have been 

struck by vessels. Worldwide ship strike 

records show little evidence of strikes of 

these groups from the shipping sector 

and larger vessels, and the majority of 

the Navy’s activities involving fastermoving vessels (that could be 

considered more likely to hit a marine 

mammal) are located in offshore areas 

where smaller delphinid densities are 

lower. Based on this information, NMFS 

concurs with the Navy’s assessment that 

vessel strike is not likely to occur for 

either large whales or smaller marine 

mammals. 

Marine Mammal Habitat 

Impacts on marine mammal habitat 

are part of the consideration in making 

a finding of negligible impact on the 

species and stocks of marine mammals. 

Habitat includes, but is not necessarily 

limited to, rookeries, mating grounds, 

feeding areas, and areas of similar 

significance. We do not anticipate that 

the Navy’s proposed activities would 

result in permanent effects on the 

habitats used by the marine mammals in 

the PMSR Study Area, including the 

availability of prey (i.e., fish and 

invertebrates). While it is anticipated 

that the proposed activity may result in 

marine mammals avoiding certain areas 

due to temporary ensonification, this 

impact to habitat is temporary and 

reversible and was considered in further 

detail earlier in this document, as 

behavioral modification. The main 

impact associated with the proposed 

activity will be temporarily elevated 

noise levels and the associated direct 

effects on marine mammals, previously 

discussed in this notice. 

Effects to Prey—Sound may affect 

marine mammals through impacts on 

the abundance, behavior, or distribution 

of prey species (e.g., crustaceans, 

cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine 

mammal prey varies by species, season, 

and location and, for some species, is 

not well documented. Here, we describe 

studies regarding the effects of noise on 

known marine mammal prey. 

Fish utilize the soundscape and 

components of sound in their 

environment to perform important 

functions such as foraging, predator 

avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., 

Zelick et al., 1999; Fay, 2009). The most 

likely effects on fishes exposed to loud, 

intermittent, low-frequency sounds are 

behavioral responses (i.e., flight or 

avoidance). Short duration, sharp 

sounds (such as pile driving or air guns) 

can cause overt or subtle changes in fish 

behavior and local distribution. The 

reaction of fish to acoustic sources 

depends on the physiological state of 

the fish, past exposures, motivation 

(e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and 

other environmental factors. Key 

impacts to fishes may include 

behavioral responses, hearing damage, 

barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), 

and mortality. 

Fishes, like other vertebrates, have a 

variety of different sensory systems to 

glean information from ocean around 

them (Astrup and Mohl, 1993; Astrup, 

1999; Braun and Grande, 2008; Carroll 

et al., 2017; Hawkins and Johnstone, 

1978; Ladich and Popper, 2004; Ladich 

and Schulz-Mirbach, 2016; Mann, 2016; 

Nedwell et al., 2004; Popper et al., 2003; 

Popper et al., 2005). Depending on their 

hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory 

structures, which vary among species, 

fishes hear sounds using pressure and 

particle motion sensitivity capabilities 

and detect the motion of surrounding 

water (Fay et al., 2008) (terrestrial 

vertebrates generally only detect 

pressure). Most marine fishes primarily 

detect particle motion using the inner 

ear and lateral line system, while some 

fishes possess additional morphological 

adaptations or specializations that can 

enhance their sensitivity to sound 

pressure, such as a gas-filled swim 

bladder (Braun and Grande, 2008; 

Popper and Fay, 2011). 

Hearing capabilities vary considerably 

between different fish species with data 

only available for just over 100 species 

out of the 34,000 marine and freshwater 

fish species (Eschmeyer and Fong, 

2016). In order to better understand 

acoustic impacts on fishes, fish hearing 

groups are defined by species that 

possess a similar continuum of 

anatomical features which result in 

varying degrees of hearing sensitivity 

(Popper and Hastings, 2009a). There are 

four hearing groups defined for all fish 

species (modified from Popper et al., 

2014) within this analysis and they 

include: Fishes without a swim bladder 

(e.g., flatfish, sharks, rays, etc.); fishes 

with a swim bladder not involved in 

hearing (e.g., salmon, cod, pollock, etc.); 

fishes with a swim bladder involved in 

hearing (e.g., sardines, anchovy, herring, 

etc.); and fishes with a swim bladder 

involved in hearing and high-frequency 

hearing (e.g., shad and menhaden). 

Currently, less data are available to 

estimate the range of best sensitivity for 

fishes without a swim bladder. 

In terms of behavioral responses of 

fish, Juanes et al. (2017) discuss the 

potential for negative impacts from 

anthropogenic soundscapes on fish, but 

the author’s focus was on broader based 

sounds such as ship and boat noise 

sources. Occasional behavioral reactions 

to intermittent explosions occurring at 

or near the surface are unlikely to cause 

long-term consequences for individual 

fish or populations; there are no 

detonations of explosives occurring 

underwater from the proposed 

activities. Fish that experience hearing 

loss as a result of exposure to explosions 

may have a reduced ability to detect 

relevant sounds such as predators, prey, 

or social vocalizations. However, PTS 

has not been known to occur in fishes 

and any hearing loss in fish may be as 

temporary as the timeframe required to 

repair or replace the sensory cells that 

were damaged or destroyed (Popper et 

al., 2005; Popper et al., 2014; Smith et 

al., 2006). It is not known if damage to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37813 

auditory nerve fibers could occur, and if 

so, whether fibers would recover during 

this process. It is also possible for fish 

to be injured or killed by an explosion 

in the immediate vicinity of the surface 

from dropped or fired ordnance. 

Physical effects from pressure waves 

generated by detonations at or near the 

surface could potentially affect fish 

within proximity of training or testing 

activities. The shock wave from 

occurring at or near the surface may be 

lethal to fish at close range, causing 

massive organ and tissue damage and 

internal bleeding (Keevin and Hempen, 

1997). At greater distance from the 

detonation point, the extent of mortality 

or injury depends on a number of 

factors including fish size, body shape, 

orientation, and species (Keevin and 

Hempen, 1997; Wright, 1982). At the 

same distance from the source, larger 

fish are generally less susceptible to 

death or injury, elongated forms that are 

round in cross-section are less at risk 

than deep-bodied forms, and fish 

oriented sideways to the blast suffer the 

greatest impact (Edds-Walton and 

Finneran, 2006; O’Keeffe, 1984; 

O’Keeffe and Young, 1984; Wiley et al., 

1981; Yelverton et al., 1975). Species 

with gas-filled organs are more 

susceptible to injury and mortality than 

those without them (Gaspin, 1975; 

Gaspin et al., 1976; Goertner et al., 

1994). 

Fish not killed or driven from a 

location by an explosion might change 

their behavior, feeding pattern, or 

distribution. Changes in behavior of fish 

have been observed as a result of sound 

produced by explosives, with effect 

intensified in areas of hard substrate 

(Wright, 1982). However, Navy would 

avoid hard substrate to the best extent 

practical in the course of their activities. 

Training and testing exercises involving 

explosions at or near the surface are 

dispersed in space and time; therefore, 

repeated exposure of individual fishes 

are unlikely. Mortality and injury effects 

to fishes from explosives would be 

localized around the area of a given 

explosion, but only if individual fish 

and the explosive at the surface were colocated at the same time. Fishes deeper 

in the water column or on the bottom 

would not be affected by surface 

explosions. Long-term consequences for 

fish populations, including key prey 

species within the PMSR Study Area, 

would not be expected. 

Vessels and in-water devices do not 

normally collide with adult fish, most of 

which can detect and avoid them. 

Exposure of fishes to vessel strike 

stressors is limited to those fish groups 

that are large, slow-moving, and may 

occur near the surface, such as ocean 

sunfish, whale sharks, basking sharks, 

and manta rays. These species are 

distributed widely in offshore portions 

of the PMSR Study Area. Any isolated 

cases of a Navy vessel striking an 

individual could injure that individual, 

impacting the fitness of an individual 

fish. Vessel strikes would not pose a risk 

to most of the other marine fish groups, 

because many fish can detect and avoid 

vessel movements, making strikes rare 

and allowing the fish to return to their 

normal behavior after the ship or device 

passes. As a vessel approaches a fish, 

they could have a detectable behavioral 

or physiological response (e.g., 

swimming away and increased heart 

rate) as the passing vessel displaces 

them. However, such reactions are not 

expected to have lasting effects on the 

survival, growth, recruitment, or 

reproduction of these marine fish 

groups at the population level and 

therefore would not have an impact on 

marine mammal species as prey items. 

In addition to fish, prey sources such 

as marine invertebrates could 

potentially be impacted by sound 

stressors as a result of the proposed 

activities. However, most marine 

invertebrates’ ability to sense sounds is 

very limited. In most cases, marine 

invertebrates would not respond to 

impulsive sounds. Data on response of 

invertebrates such as squid, another 

marine mammal prey species, to 

anthropogenic sound has been 

documented (de Soto, 2016; Sole et al., 

2017b). Explosions could kill or injure 

nearby marine invertebrates. Vessels 

also have the potential to impact marine 

invertebrates by disturbing the water 

column or sediments, or directly 

striking organisms (Bishop, 2008). The 

propeller wash (water displaced by 

propellers used for propulsion) from 

vessel movement and water displaced 

from vessel hulls can potentially disturb 

marine invertebrates in the water 

column and is a likely cause of 

zooplankton mortality (Bickel et al., 

2011). The localized and short-term 

exposure to at or near the surface 

explosions or vessels could displace, 

injure, or kill zooplankton, invertebrate 

eggs or larvae, and macro-invertebrates. 

However, mortality or long-term 

consequences for a few animals is 

unlikely to have measurable effects on 

overall populations. Long-term 

consequences to marine invertebrate 

populations would not be expected as a 

result of exposure to sounds of vessels 

in the PMSR Study Area. 

Military expended materials resulting 

from training and testing activities 

could potentially result in minor longterm changes to benthic habitat, 

however the impacts of small amounts 

of expended materials are unlikely to 

have measurable effects on overall 

populations. Military expended 

materials may be colonized over time by 

benthic organisms that prefer hard 

substrate and would provide structure 

that could attract some species of fish or 

invertebrates. 

Overall, the combined impacts of 

sound exposure, explosions, vessel 

strikes, and military expended materials 

resulting from the proposed activities 

would not be expected to have 

measurable effects on populations of 

marine mammal prey species. Prey 

species exposed to sound might move 

away from the sound source or show no 

obvious direct effects at all, but a rapid 

return to normal recruitment, 

distribution, and behavior is 

anticipated. Long-term consequences to 

fish or marine invertebrate populations 

would not be expected as a result of 

exposure to sounds or vessels in the 

PMSR Study Area. 

Acoustic Habitat—Acoustic habitat is 

the soundscape which encompasses all 

of the sound present in a particular 

location and time, as a whole when 

considered from the perspective of the 

animals experiencing it. Animals 

produce sound for, or listen for sounds 

produced by, conspecifics 

(communication during feeding, mating, 

and other social activities), other 

animals (finding prey or avoiding 

predators), and the physical 

environment (finding suitable habitats, 

navigating). Together, sounds made by 

animals and the geophysical 

environment (e.g., produced by 

earthquakes, lightning, wind, rain, 

waves) make up the natural 

contributions to the total acoustics of a 

place. These acoustic conditions, 

termed acoustic habitat, are one 

attribute of an animal’s total habitat. 

Soundscapes are also defined by, and 

acoustic habitat influenced by, the total 

contribution of anthropogenic sound. 

This may include incidental emissions 

from sources such as vessel traffic or 

may be intentionally introduced to the 

marine environment for data acquisition 

purposes (e.g., as in the use of air gun 

arrays) or for Navy training and testing 

purposes (as in the use of explosives, 

and target and missile launches on SNI). 

Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its 

frequency, content, duration, and 

loudness, and these characteristics 

greatly influence the potential habitatmediated effects to marine mammals, 

which may range from local effects for 

brief periods of time to chronic effects 

over large areas and for long durations. 

Depending on the extent of effects to 

habitat, animals may alter their 

communications signals (thereby 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37814 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

potentially expending additional 

energy) or miss acoustic cues (either 

conspecific or adventitious). Problems 

arising from a failure to detect cues are 

more likely to occur when noise stimuli 

are chronic and overlap with 

biologically relevant cues used for 

communication, orientation, and 

predator/prey detection (Francis and 

Barber, 2013). For more detail on these 

concepts see, e.g., Barber et al., 2009; 

Pijanowski et al., 2011; Francis and 

Barber, 2013; Lillis et al., 2014. We do 

not anticipate these problems arising 

from at or near surface explosions or 

from launched targets and missiles 

produced during training and testing 

activities as they would be more widely 

dispersed or concentrated in small areas 

for shorter periods of time. 

Anthropogenic noise attributable to 

Navy testing and training activities in 

the PMSR Study Area emanates from 

multiple sources including explosives, 

vessels, and launched targets and 

missiles occurring in the vicinity of 

pinniped haul out sites. Sound 

produced from training and testing 

activities in the PMSR Study Area 

would be temporary and transitory; the 

affected area would be expected to 

immediately return to the original state 

when these activities cease. 

Water Quality—Training and testing 

activities may introduce water quality 

constituents into the water column. 

Based on the analysis of the 2020 PMSR 

DSEIS/OEIS, military expended 

materials (e.g., undetonated explosive 

materials) would be released in 

quantities and at rates that would not 

result in a violation of any water quality 

standard or criteria. NMFS has reviewed 

this analysis and concurs that it reflects 

the best available science. High-order 

explosions consume most of the 

explosive material, creating typical 

combustion products. For example, in 

the case of the Royal Demolition 

Explosive, 98 percent of the products 

are common seawater constituents and 

the remainder is rapidly diluted below 

threshold effect level. Explosion byproducts associated with high order 

detonations present no secondary 

stressors to marine mammals through 

sediment or water. However, low order 

detonations and unexploded ordnance 

present elevated likelihood of impacts 

on marine mammals. 

Indirect effects of explosives and 

unexploded ordnance to marine 

mammals via sediment is possible in the 

immediate vicinity of the ordnance. 

Degradation products of the Royal 

Demolition Explosive are not toxic to 

marine organisms at realistic exposure 

levels (Rosen and Lotufo, 2010). 

Relatively low solubility of most 

explosives and their degradation 

products means that concentrations of 

these contaminants in the marine 

environment are relatively low and 

readily diluted. Furthermore, while 

explosives and their degradation 

products were detectable in marine 

sediment approximately 6–12 in (0.15– 

0.3 m) away from degrading ordnance, 

the concentrations of these compounds 

were not statistically distinguishable 

from background beyond 3–6 ft (1–2 m) 

from the degrading ordnance. Taken 

together, it is possible that marine 

mammals could be exposed to 

degrading explosives, but it would be 

within a very small radius of the 

explosive (1–6 ft (0.3–2 m)). 

Equipment used by the Navy within 

the PMSR Study Area, including ships 

and other marine vessels, aircraft, and 

other equipment, are also potential 

sources of by-products. All equipment is 

properly maintained in accordance with 

applicable Navy and legal requirements. 

All such operating equipment meets 

Federal water quality standards, where 

applicable. 

Airborne Launch Sounds on SNI— 

Various beaches around SNI are used by 

pinnipeds as places to rest, molt, and 

breed. These beaches consist of sand 

(e.g., Red Eye Beach), rock ledges (e.g., 

Phoca Reef), and rocky cobble (e.g., 

Bachelor Beach). Pinnipeds continue to 

use beaches around the western end of 

SNI, and indeed are expanding their use 

of some beaches despite ongoing launch 

activities for many years. Similarly, it 

appears that sounds from prior launches 

have not affected pinniped use of 

coastal areas at VAFB. 

Pinnipeds forage in the open ocean 

and in the waters near SNI; however, 

the airborne launch sounds would not 

persist in the water near SNI. Therefore, 

it is not expected that the launch 

activities would impact prey resources, 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), or feeding 

success of pinnipeds. Three types of 

EFH are present in the activity area: 

Groundfish, coastal pelagic species, and 

highly migratory species, as well as 

canopy kelp Habitat Areas of Particular 

Concern (HAPC). However, none of 

these types of EFH or HAPC will be 

impacted by the proposed activity. 

Boosters from missiles (e.g., jetassisted take off rocket bottles for BQM 

drone missiles) may be jettisoned 

shortly after launch and fall on the 

island and would be collected, but are 

not expected to impact beaches. Fuel 

contained in these boosters is consumed 

rapidly and completely, so there would 

be no risk of contamination even in the 

very unlikely event that a booster did 

land on a beach or nearshore waters. 

Overall, the proposed missile launch 

activity is not expected to cause 

significant impacts or have permanent, 

adverse effects on pinniped habitats or 

on their foraging habitats and prey. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

This section indicates the number of 

takes that NMFS is proposing to 

authorize, which is based on the 

maximum amount that is reasonably 

likely to occur, depending on the type 

of take and the methods used to 

estimate it, as described in detail below. 

NMFS coordinated closely with the 

Navy in the development of their 

incidental take application, and 

preliminarily agrees that the methods 

the Navy has put forth described herein 

to estimate take (including the model, 

thresholds, and density estimates), and 

the resulting numbers estimated for 

authorization, are appropriate and based 

on the best available science. 

All takes are by harassment. For a 

military readiness activity, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as (i) Any act that 

injures or has the significant potential to 

injure a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild (Level A 

Harassment); or (ii) Any act that 

disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of natural 

behavioral patterns, including, but not 

limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a 

point where such behavioral patterns 

are abandoned or significantly altered 

(Level B Harassment). No serious injury 

or mortality of marine mammals is 

expected to occur. 

Proposed authorized takes would 

primarily be in the form of Level B 

harassment, as use of the explosive 

sources and may result, either directly 

or as result of TTS, in the disruption of 

natural behavioral patterns to a point 

where they are abandoned or 

significantly altered (as defined 

specifically at the beginning of this 

section, but referred to generally as 

behavioral disruption). There is also the 

potential for Level A harassment, in the 

form of auditory injury to result from 

exposure to the sound sources utilized 

in training and testing activities. 

Generally speaking, for acoustic 

impacts NMFS estimates the amount 

and type of harassment by considering: 

(1) Acoustic thresholds above which 

NMFS believes the best available 

science indicates marine mammals will 

be taken by Level B harassment or incur 

some degree of temporary or permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day or event; (3) 

the density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37815 

and (4) the number of days of activities 

or events. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS, in coordination with the Navy, 

has established acoustic thresholds that 

identify the most appropriate received 

level of underwater sound above which 

marine mammals exposed to these 

sound sources could be reasonably 

expected to directly experience a 

disruption in behavior patterns to a 

point where they are abandoned or 

significantly altered, to incur TTS 

(equated to Level B harassment), or to 

incur PTS of some degree (equated to 

Level A harassment). Thresholds have 

also been developed to identify the 

pressure levels above which animals 

may incur non-auditory injury from 

exposure to pressure waves from 

explosive detonation. Refer to the 

Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy 

Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis 

(Phase III) report (U.S. Department of 

the Navy, 2017c) for detailed 

information on how the criteria and 

thresholds were derived. 

Despite the quickly evolving science, 

there are still challenges in quantifying 

expected behavioral responses that 

qualify as take by Level B harassment, 

especially where the goal is to use one 

or two predictable indicators (e.g., 

received level and distance) to predict 

responses that are also driven by 

additional factors that cannot be easily 

incorporated into the thresholds (e.g., 

context). So, while the behavioral 

harassment thresholds have been 

refined here to better consider the best 

available science (e.g., incorporating 

both received level and distance), they 

also still have some built-in 

conservative factors to address the 

challenge noted. For example, while 

duration of observed responses in the 

data are now considered in the 

thresholds, many of the responses that 

are informing take thresholds are of a 

very short duration, such that it is 

possible that responses will not rise to 

the level of disrupting behavior patterns 

to a point where they are abandoned or 

significantly altered. We describe the 

application of this behavioral 

harassment threshold as identifying the 

maximum number of instances in which 

marine mammals could be reasonably 

expected to experience a disruption in 

behavior patterns to a point where they 

are abandoned or significantly altered. 

In summary, we believe these 

behavioral harassment thresholds are 

the most appropriate method for 

predicting Level B harassment by 

behavioral disturbance given the best 

available science and the associated 

uncertainty. 

Hearing Impairment (TTS/PTS), Tissues 

Damage, and Mortality 

NMFS’ Acoustic Technical Guidance 

(NMFS, 2018) identifies dual criteria to 

assess auditory injury (Level A 

harassment) to five different marine 

mammal groups (based on hearing 

sensitivity) as a result of exposure to 

noise from two different types of 

sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). 

The Acoustic Technical Guidance also 

identifies criteria to predict TTS, which 

is not considered injury and falls into 

the Level B harassment category. The 

Navy’s proposed activity only includes 

the use of impulsive (explosives) 

sources. These thresholds (Table 7) were 

developed by compiling and 

synthesizing the best available science 

and soliciting input multiple times from 

both the public and peer reviewers. The 

references, analysis, and methodology 

used in the development of the 

thresholds are described in Acoustic 

Technical Guidance, which may be 

accessed at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance. 

Based on the best available science, 

the Navy (in coordination with NMFS) 

used the acoustic and pressure 

thresholds indicated in Table 7 to 

predict the onset of TTS, PTS, tissue 

damage, and mortality for explosives 

(impulsive) and other impulsive sound 

sources. 

TABLE 7—ONSET OF TTS, PTS, TISSUE DAMAGE, AND MORTALITY THRESHOLDS FOR MARINE MAMMALS FOR

EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER IMPULSIVE SOURCES

Functional hearing 

group Species Onset TTS Onset PTS Mean onset slight GI tract injury 

Mean onset slight 

lung injury 

Mean onset 

mortality 

Low-frequency 

cetaceans.

All mysticetes ...... 168 dB SEL 

(weighted) or 

213 dB Peak 

SPL.

183 dB SEL 

(weighted). or 

219 dB Peak 

SPL.

237 dB Peak SPL Equation 1 ........... Equation 2 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans.

Most delphinids, 

medium and 

large toothed 

whales.

170 dB SEL 

(weighted) or 

224 dB Peak 

SPL.

185 dB SEL 

(weighted) or 

230 dB Peak 

SPL.

237 dB Peak SPL.

High-frequency 

cetaceans.

Porpoises and 

Kogia spp.

140 dB SEL 

(weighted) or 

196 dB Peak 

SPL.

155 dB SEL 

(weighted) or 

202 dB Peak 

SPL.

237 dB Peak SPL.

Notes: 

Equation 1: 47.5M1/3 (1+[DRm/10.1])1/6 Pa-sec. 

Equation 2: 103M1/3 (1+[DRm/10.1])1/6 Pa-sec. 

M = mass of the animals in kg. 

DRm = depth of the receiver (animal) in meters. 

SPL = sound pressure level. 

Refer to the Criteria and Thresholds 

for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 

Effects Analysis (Phase III) report (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2017c) for 

detailed information on how the criteria 

and thresholds were derived. Nonauditory injury (i.e., other than PTS) 

and mortality are so unlikely as to be 

discountable under normal conditions 

and are therefore not considered further 

in this analysis. 

The mitigation measures associated 

with explosives are expected to be 

effective in preventing non-auditory 

tissue damage to any potentially 

affected species, and when considered 

in combination with the modeled 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37816 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

exposure results, no species are 

anticipated to incur non-auditory tissue 

damage during the period of this rule. 

Table 16 indicates the range of effects 

for tissue damage for different explosive 

types. The Navy will implement 

mitigation measures (described in the 

Proposed Mitigation Measures section) 

during explosive activities, including 

delaying detonations when a marine 

mammal is observed in the mitigation 

zone. Nearly all explosive events will 

occur during daylight hours to improve 

the sightability of marine mammals and 

thereby improve mitigation 

effectiveness. Observing for marine 

mammals during the explosive activities 

will include visual methods before the 

activity begins, in order to cover the 

mitigation zone (e.g., 2,500 yds (2,286 

m) for explosive bombs). 

Behavioral Disturbance 

Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of Level B 

harassment by direct behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle, distance), the environment 

(e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving 

animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography, behavioral 

context) and can be difficult to predict 

(Ellison et al., 2011; Southall et al., 

2007). Based on what the available 

science indicates and the practical need 

to use thresholds based on a factor, or 

factors, that are both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

uses generalized acoustic thresholds 

based primarily on received level (and 

distance in some cases) to estimate the 

onset of Level B harassment by 

behavioral disturbance. 

Explosives—Explosive thresholds for 

Level B harassment by behavioral 

disturbance for marine mammals are the 

hearing groups’ TTS thresholds minus 5 

dB (see Table 8 below and Table 7 for 

the TTS thresholds for explosives) for 

events that contain multiple impulses 

from explosives underwater. This was 

the same approach as taken in Phase II 

and Phase III for explosive analysis in 

other Navy training and testing Study 

Areas. See the Criteria and Thresholds 

for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 

Effects Analysis (Phase III) report (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2017c) for 

detailed information on how the criteria 

and thresholds were derived. NMFS 

continues to concur that this approach 

represents the best available science for 

determining behavioral disturbance of 

marine mammals from multiple 

explosives. While marine mammals may 

also respond to single explosive 

detonations, these responses are 

expected to more typically be in the 

form of startle reaction, rather than a 

disruption in natural behavioral 

patterns to the point where they are 

abandoned or significantly altered. On 

the rare occasion that a single 

detonation might result in a more severe 

behavioral response that qualifies as 

Level B harassment, it would be 

expected to be in response to a 

comparatively higher received level. 

Accordingly, NMFS considers the 

potential for these responses to be 

quantitatively accounted for through the 

application of the TTS threshold, which 

as noted above is 5dB higher than the 

behavioral harassment threshold for 

multiple explosives. 

TABLE 8—THRESHOLDS FOR LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT BY BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE FOR EXPLOSIVES FOR

MARINE MAMMALS

Medium 

Functional 

hearing 

group 

SEL 

(weighted) 

Underwater .... LF ............. 163 

Underwater .... MF ............ 165 

Underwater .... HF ............. 135 

Underwater .... Otariids ..... 183 

Underwater .... Phocids ..... 165 

Note: Weighted SEL thresholds in dB re 1 

μPa2s underwater. LF = low-frequency, MF = 

mid-frequency, HF = high-frequency. 

Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model 

The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model 

calculates sound energy propagation 

from sonar and other transducers and 

explosives during naval activities and 

the sound received by animat 

dosimeters. Animat dosimeters are 

virtual representations of marine 

mammals distributed in the area around 

the modeled naval activity and each 

dosimeter records its individual sound 

‘‘dose.’’ The model bases the 

distribution of animats over the PMSR 

Study Area on the density values in the 

Navy Marine Species Density Database 

and distributes animats in the water 

column proportional to the known time 

that species spend at varying depths. 

The model accounts for 

environmental variability of sound 

propagation in both distance and depth 

when computing the received sound 

level received by the animats. The 

model conducts a statistical analysis 

based on multiple model runs to 

compute the estimated effects on 

animals. The number of animats that 

exceed the thresholds for effects is 

tallied to provide an estimate of the 

number of marine mammals that could 

be affected. 

Assumptions in the Navy model 

intentionally err on the side of 

overestimation when there are 

unknowns. Naval activities are modeled 

as though they would occur regardless 

of proximity to marine mammals, 

meaning that no mitigation is 

considered and without any avoidance 

of the activity by the animal. The final 

step of the quantitative analysis of 

acoustic effects is to consider the 

implementation of mitigation and the 

possibility that marine mammals would 

avoid continued or repeated sound 

exposures. For more information on this 

process, see the discussion in the Take 

Estimation subsection below. Many 

explosions from ordnance such as 

bombs and missiles actually occur upon 

impact with above-water targets. 

However, for this analysis, sources such 

as these were modeled as exploding 

underwater, which overestimates the 

amount of explosive and acoustic 

energy entering the water. 

The model estimates the impacts 

caused by individual training and 

testing exercises. During any individual 

modeled event, impacts to individual 

animats are considered over 24-hour 

periods. The animats do not represent 

actual animals, but rather a distribution 

of animals based on density and 

abundance data, which allows for a 

statistical analysis of the number of 

instances that marine mammals may be 

exposed to sound levels resulting in an 

effect. Therefore, the model estimates 

the number of instances in which an 

effect threshold was exceeded over the 

course of a year, but does not estimate 

the number of individual marine 

mammals that may be impacted over a 

year (i.e., some marine mammals could 

be impacted several times, while others 

would not experience any impact). A 

detailed explanation of the Navy’s 

Acoustic Effects Model is provided in 

the technical report Quantifying 

Acoustic Impacts on Marine Species: 

Methods and Analytical Approach for 

Activities at the Point Mugu Sea Range 

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2020). 

Range to Effects 

The following section provides range 

(distance) to effects for explosives, to 

specific acoustic thresholds determined 

using the Navy Acoustic Effects Model. 

Marine mammals exposed within these 

ranges for the shown duration are 

predicted to experience the associated 

effect. Range to effects is important 

information in not only predicting 

acoustic impacts, but also in verifying 

the accuracy of model results against 

real-world situations and determining 

adequate mitigation ranges to avoid 

higher level effects, especially 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37817 

physiological effects to marine 

mammals. 

Explosives 

The following section provides the 

range (distance) over which specific 

physiological or behavioral effects are 

expected to occur based on the 

explosive criteria (see Section 6, Section 

6.5.2.1.1 of the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA 

application and the Criteria and 

Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and 

Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) 

report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2017c)) and the explosive propagation 

calculations from the Navy Acoustic 

Effects Model (see Section 6, Section 

6.5.2.1.3, Navy Acoustic Effects Model 

of the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA 

application). The range to effects is 

shown for a range of explosive bins, 

from E1 (up to 0.25 lb net explosive 

weight) to E10 (up to 500 lb net 

explosive weight) (Tables 11 through 

17). Explosive bins not shown on these 

tables include E2, E4, E7, E11, and E12, 

as they are not used in the PMSR Study 

Area and therefore not included in 

Tables 11 through 17. Ranges are 

determined by modeling the distance 

that noise from an explosion would 

need to propagate to reach exposure 

level thresholds specific to a hearing 

group that would cause behavioral 

response (to the degree of Level B 

harassment), TTS, PTS, and nonauditory injury. Ranges are provided for 

a representative source depth and 

cluster size for each bin. For events with 

multiple explosions, sound from 

successive explosions can be expected 

to accumulate and increase the range to 

the onset of an impact based on SEL 

thresholds. Ranges to non-auditory 

injury and mortality are shown in 

Tables 16 and 17, respectively. NMFS 

has reviewed the range distance to effect 

data provided by the Navy and concurs 

with the analysis. For additional 

information on how ranges to impacts 

from explosions were estimated, see the 

technical report Quantifying Acoustic 

Impacts on Marine Species: Methods 

and Analytical Approach for Activities 

at the Point Mugu Sea Range (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2020). 

Table 11 shows the minimum, 

average, and maximum ranges to onset 

of auditory and behavioral effects that 

likely rise to the level of Level B 

harassment for high-frequency cetaceans 

based on the developed thresholds. 

TABLE 11—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY BEHAVIORAL

DISTURBANCE FOR HIGH-FREQUENCY CETACEANS

Bin Cluster size PTS TTS Behavioral 

E1 ................................................................................. 1 353 (130–825) 1,234 (290–3,025) 2,141 (340–4,775) 

25 1,188 (280–3,025) 3,752 (490–8,525) 5,196 (675–12,275) 

E3 ................................................................................. 1 654 (220–1,525) 2,294 (350–4,775) 3,483 (490–7,775) 

12 1,581 (300–3,525) 4,573 (650–10,275) 6,188 (725–14,775) 

E5 ................................................................................. 25 2,892 (440–6,275) 6,633 (725–16,025) 8,925 (800–22,775) 

E6 ................................................................................. 1 1,017 (280–2,525) 3,550 (490–7,775) 4,908 (675–12,275) 

E8 ................................................................................. 1 1,646 (775–2,525) 4,322 (1,525–9,775) 5,710 (1,525–14,275) 

E9 ................................................................................. 1 2,105 (850–4,025) 4,901 (1,525–12,525) 6,700 (1,525–16,775) 

E10 ............................................................................... 1 2,629 (875–5,275) 5,905 (1,525–13,775) 7,996 (1,525–20,025) 

1Average distance in meters is depicted above the minimum and maximum distances, which are in parentheses. 

Notes: SEL = Sound Exposure Level, PTS = permanent threshold shift, TTS = temporary threshold shift. 

Table 12 shows the minimum, 

average, and maximum ranges to onset 

of auditory and behavioral effects that 

likely rise to the level of Level B 

harassment for mid-frequency cetaceans 

based on the developed thresholds. 

TABLE 12—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY BEHAVIORAL

DISTURBANCE FOR MID-FREQUENCY CETACEANS

Bin Cluster Size PTS TTS Behavioral 

E1 ................................................................................. 1 25 (25–25) 118 (80–210) 178 (100–320) 

25 107 (75–170) 476 (150–1,275) 676 (240–1,525) 

E3 ................................................................................. 1 50 (45–65) 233 (110–430) 345 (130–600) 

12 153 (90–250) 642 (220–1,525) 897 (270–2,025) 

E5 ................................................................................. 25 318 (130–625) 1,138 (280–3,025) 1,556 (310–3,775) 

E6 ................................................................................. 1 98 (70–170) 428 (150–800) 615 (210–1,525) 

E8 ................................................................................. 1 160 (150–170) 676 (500–725) 942 (600–1,025) 

E9 ................................................................................. 1 215 (200–220) 861 (575–950) 1,147 (650–1,525) 

E10 ............................................................................... 1 275 (250–480) 1,015 (525–2,275) 1,424 (675–3,275) 

1Average distance in meters to mortality is depicted above the minimum and maximum distances, which are in parentheses. 

Notes: SEL = Sound Exposure Level, PTS = permanent threshold shift, TTS = temporary threshold shift. 

Table 13 shows the minimum, 

average, and maximum ranges to onset 

of auditory and behavioral effects that 

likely rise to the level of Level B 

harassment for low-frequency cetaceans 

based on the developed thresholds. 

TABLE 13—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY BEHAVIORAL

DISTURBANCE FOR LOW-FREQUENCY CETACEANS

Bin Cluster size PTS TTS Behavioral 

E1 ................................................................................. 1 51 (40–70) 227 (100–320) 124 (70–160) 

25 205 (95–270) 772 (270–1,275) 476 (190–725) 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37818 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 13—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY BEHAVIORAL

DISTURBANCE FOR LOW-FREQUENCY CETACEANS—Continued 

Bin Cluster size PTS TTS Behavioral 

E3 ................................................................................. 1 109 (65–150) 503 (190–1,000) 284 (120–430)

12 338 (130–525) 1,122 (320–7,775) 761 (240–6,025) 

E5 ................................................................................. 25 740 (220–6,025) 2,731 (460–22,275) 1,414 (350–14,275) 

E6 ................................................................................. 1 250 (100–420) 963 (260–7,275) 617 (200–1,275) 

E8 ................................................................................. 1 460 (170–950) 1,146 (380–7,025) 873 (280–3,025) 

E9 ................................................................................. 1 616 (200–1,275) 1,560 (450–12,025) 1,014 (330–5,025) 

E10 ............................................................................... 1 787 (210–2,525) 2,608 (440–18,275) 1,330 (330–9,025) 

1Average distance in meters to mortality is depicted above the minimum and maximum distances, which are in parentheses. 

Notes: SEL = Sound Exposure Level, PTS = permanent threshold shift, TTS = temporary threshold shift. 

TABLE 14—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY BEHAVIORAL

DISTURBANCE FOR OTARIIDS

Bin Cluster size PTS TTS Behavioral 

E1 ................................................................................. 1 7 (7–7) 34 (30–40) 56 (45–70) 

25 30 (25–35) 136 (80–180) 225 (100–320) 

10 25 (25–30) 115 (70–150) 189 (95–250) 

E3 ................................................................................. 1 16 (15–19) 70 (50–95) 115 (70–150) 

12 45 (35–65) 206 (100–290) 333 (130–450) 

12 55 (50–60) 333 (280–750) 544 (440–1,025) 

E5 ................................................................................. 25 98 (60–120) 418 (160–575) 626 (240–1,000)

E6 ................................................................................. 1 30 (25–35) 134 (75–180) 220 (100–320) 

E8 ................................................................................. 1 50 (50–50) 235 (220–250) 385 (330–450) 

E9 ................................................................................. 1 68 (65–70) 316 (280–360) 494 (390–625) 

E10 ............................................................................... 1 86 (80–95) 385 (240–460) 582 (390–800) 

1Average distance in meters to mortality is depicted above the minimum and maximum distances, which are in parentheses. 

Notes: SEL = Sound Exposure Level, PTS = permanent threshold shift, TTS = temporary threshold shift. 

TABLE 15—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY BEHAVIORAL

DISTURBANCE FOR PHOCIDS

Bin Cluster size PTS TTS Behavioral 

E1 ................................................................................. 1 45 (40–65) 210 (100–290) 312 (130–430) 

25 190 (95–260) 798 (280–1,275) 1,050 (360–2,275) 

E2 ................................................................................. 1 58 (45–75) 258 (110–360) 383 (150–550) 

10 157 (85–240) 672 (240–1,275) 934 (310–1,525) 

E3 ................................................................................. 1 96 (60–120) 419 (160–625) 607 (220–900) 

12 277 (120–390) 1,040 (370–2,025) 1,509 (525–6,275) 

E5 ................................................................................. 25 569 (200–850) 2,104 (725–9,275) 2,895 (825–11,025) 

E6 ................................................................................. 1 182 (90–250) 767 (270–1,275) 1,011 (370–1,775) 

E8 ................................................................................. 1 311 (290–330) 1,154 (625–1,275) 1,548 (725–2,275) 

E9 ................................................................................. 1 416 (350–470) 1,443 (675–2,025) 1,911 (800–3,525) 

E10 ............................................................................... 1 507 (340–675) 1,734 (725–3,525) 2,412 (800–5,025) 

1Average distance (in meters) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances, which are in 

parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels. 

Notes: SEL = Sound Exposure Level, PTS = permanent threshold shift, TTS = temporary threshold shift. 

Table 16 shows the minimum, 

average, and maximum ranges due to 

varying propagation conditions to nonauditory injury as a function of animal 

mass and explosive bin (i.e., net 

explosive weight). Ranges to 

gastrointestinal tract injury typically 

exceed ranges to slight lung injury; 

therefore, the maximum range to effect 

is not mass-dependent. Animals within 

these water volumes would be expected 

to receive minor injuries at the outer 

ranges, increasing to more substantial 

injuries, and finally mortality as an 

animal approaches the detonation point. 

TABLE 16—RANGES 1 TO 50 PERCENT

NON-AUDITORY INJURY RISK FOR

ALL MARINE MAMMAL HEARING

GROUPS

Bin Range (m) 

(min-max) 

E1 ..................................... 12 (11–13) 

E3 ..................................... 25 (25–30) 

E5 ..................................... 40 (35–140) 

E6 ..................................... 52 (40–120) 

E8 ..................................... 117 (75–400) 

E9 ..................................... 120 (90–290) 

TABLE 16—RANGES 1 TO 50 PERCENT

NON-AUDITORY INJURY RISK FOR

ALL MARINE MAMMAL HEARING

GROUPS—Continued 

Bin Range (m) 

(min-max) 

E10 ................................... 174 (100–480) 

Note: All ranges to non-auditory injury within this table are driven by the gastrointestinal 

(GI) tract injury threshold regardless of animal 

mass. 

Ranges to mortality, based on animal 

mass, are shown in Table 17 below. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37819 

TABLE 17—RANGES 1 TO 50 PERCENT MORTALITY RISK FOR ALL MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS AS A FUNCTION OF

ANIMAL MASS

Bin 

Animal mass intervals (kg) 1

10 250 1,000 5,000 25,000 72,000 

E1 ............................................................. 3 (2–3) 0 (0–3) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 

E3 ............................................................. 8 (6–10) 4 (2–8) 1 (0–2) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 

E5 ............................................................. 13 (11–45) 7 (4–35) 3 (3–12) 2 (0–8) 0 (0–2) 0 (0–2) 

E6 ............................................................. 18 (14–55) 10 (5–45) 5 (3–15) 3 (2–10) 0 (0–3) 0 (0–2) 

E8 ............................................................. 50 (24–110) 27 (9–55) 13 (0–20) 9 (4–13) 4 (0–6) 3 (0–5) 

E9 ............................................................. 32 (30–35) 20 (13–30) 10 (8–12) 7 (6–9) 4 (3–4) 3 (2–3) 

E10 ........................................................... 56 (40–190) 25 (16–130) 13 (11–16) 9 (7–11) 5 (4–5) 4 (3–4) 

1Average distance (m) to mortality is depicted above the minimum and maximum distances, which are in parentheses. 

Marine Mammal Density 

A quantitative analysis of impacts on 

a species or stock requires data on their 

abundance and distribution that may be 

affected by anthropogenic activities in 

the potentially impacted area. The most 

appropriate metric for this type of 

analysis is density, which is the number 

of animals present per unit area. Marine 

species density estimation requires a 

significant amount of effort to both 

collect and analyze data to produce a 

reasonable estimate. Unlike surveys for 

terrestrial wildlife, many marine species 

spend much of their time submerged, 

and are not easily observed. In order to 

collect enough sighting data to make 

reasonable density estimates, multiple 

observations are required, often in areas 

that are not easily accessible (e.g., far 

offshore). Ideally, marine mammal 

species sighting data would be collected 

for the specific area and time period 

(e.g., season) of interest and density 

estimates derived accordingly. However, 

in many places, poor weather 

conditions and high sea states prohibit 

the completion of comprehensive visual 

surveys. 

For most cetacean species, abundance 

is estimated using line-transect surveys 

or mark-recapture studies (e.g., Barlow, 

2016, 2010; Barlow and Forney, 2007; 

Calambokidis et al., 2008; Calambokidis 

and Barlow, 2020; Cooke, 2019; Forney 

et al., 2014; Trickey et al., 2020). The 

result provides one single density 

estimate value for each species across 

broad geographic areas. This is the 

general approach applied in estimating 

cetacean abundance in NMFS’ SARs. 

Although the single value provides a 

good average estimate of abundance 

(total number of individuals) for a 

specified area, it does not provide 

information on the species distribution 

or concentrations within that area, and 

it does not estimate density for other 

timeframes or seasons that were not 

surveyed. More recently, spatial habitat 

modeling developed by NMFS’ 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center has 

been used to estimate cetacean densities 

(Barlow et al., 2009, 2020; Becker et al., 

2010, 2012a, b, c, 2014, 2016; Ferguson 

et al., 2006a; Forney et al., 2012, 2015; 

Redfern et al., 2006; Rockwood et al., 

2020). These models estimate cetacean 

density as a continuous function of 

habitat variables (e.g., sea surface 

temperature, seafloor depth, etc.) and 

thus allow predictions of cetacean 

densities on finer spatial scales than 

traditional line-transect or mark 

recapture analyses and for areas that 

have not been surveyed. Within the 

geographic area that was modeled, 

densities can be predicted wherever 

these habitat variables can be measured 

or estimated. 

To characterize marine species 

density for large oceanic regions, the 

Navy reviews, critically assesses, and 

prioritizes existing density estimates 

from multiple sources, requiring the 

development of a systematic method for 

selecting the most appropriate density 

estimate for each combination of 

species, area, and season. The selection 

and compilation of the best available 

marine species density data resulted in 

the Navy Marine Species Density 

Database (NMSDD) (U.S. Department of 

the Navy, 2017). The finest temporal 

resolution (seasonal) for the NMSDD 

data for the HSTT Study Area was also 

used for the PMSR Study Area. The 

Navy vetted all cetacean densities with 

NMFS prior to use in the Navy’s 

acoustic analysis for this proposed 

rulemaking. 

A variety of density data and density 

models are needed in order to develop 

a density database that encompasses the 

entirety of the PMSR Study Area. 

Because these data are collected using 

different methods with varying amounts 

of accuracy and uncertainty, the Navy 

has developed a hierarchy to ensure the 

most accurate data is used when 

available. The technical report titled 

Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on 

Marine Species: Methods and Analytical 

Approach for Activities at the Point 

Mugu Sea Range (U.S. Department of 

the Navy, 2020), hereafter referred to as 

the Density Technical Report, describes 

these models in detail and provides 

detailed explanations of the models 

applied to each species density 

estimate. The list below describes 

models in order of preference. 

1. Spatial density models are 

preferred and used when available 

because they provide an estimate with 

the least amount of uncertainty by 

deriving estimates for divided segments 

of the sampling area. These models (see 

Becker et al., 2016; Forney et al., 2015) 

predict spatial variability of animal 

presence as a function of habitat 

variables (e.g., sea surface temperature, 

seafloor depth, etc.). This model is 

developed for areas, species, and, when 

available, specific timeframes (months 

or seasons) with sufficient survey data; 

therefore, this model cannot be used for 

species with low numbers of sightings. 

2. Stratified design-based density 

estimates use line-transect survey data 

with the sampling area divided 

(stratified) into sub-regions, and a 

density is predicted for each sub-region 

(see Barlow, 2016; Becker et al., 2016; 

Bradford et al., 2017; Campbell et al., 

2014; Jefferson et al., 2014). While 

geographically stratified density 

estimates provide a better indication of 

a species’ distribution within the study 

area, the uncertainty is typically high 

because each sub-region estimate is 

based on a smaller stratified segment of 

the overall survey effort. 

3. Design-based density estimations 

use line-transect survey data from land 

and aerial surveys designed to cover a 

specific geographic area (see Carretta et 

al., 2015). These estimates use the same 

survey data as stratified design-based 

estimates, but are not segmented into 

sub-regions and instead provide one 

estimate for a large surveyed area. 

Although relative environmental 

suitability (RES) models provide 

estimates for areas of the oceans that 

have not been surveyed using 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37820 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

information on species occurrence and 

inferred habitat associations and have 

been used in past density databases, 

these models were not used in the 

current quantitative analysis. 

Below we describe how densities 

were determined for the species in the 

PMSR Study Area. 

The Navy developed a protocol and 

database to select the best available data 

sources based on species, area, and time 

(season). The resulting Geographic 

Information System database, used in 

the NMSDD, includes seasonal density 

values for every marine mammal species 

present within the PMSR Study Area. 

This database is described in the 

Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on 

Marine Species: Methods and Analytical 

Approach for Activities at the Point 

Mugu Sea Range (U.S. Department of 

the Navy, 2020) (also referred to as the 

Density Technical Report in this rule). 

The Navy describes some of the 

challenges of interpreting the results of 

the quantitative analysis summarized 

above and described in the Density 

Technical Report: ‘‘It is important to 

consider that even the best estimate of 

marine species density is really a model 

representation of the values of 

concentration where these animals 

might occur. Each model is limited to 

the variables and assumptions 

considered by the original data source 

provider. No mathematical model 

representation of any biological 

population is perfect, and with regards 

to marine mammal density, any single 

model method will not completely 

explain the actual distribution and 

abundance of marine mammal species. 

It is expected that there would be 

anomalies in the results that need to be 

evaluated, with independent 

information for each case, to support if 

we might accept or reject a model or 

portions of the model (U.S. Department 

of the Navy, 2017a).’’ There was only 

one species, the harbor porpoise, where 

there was no density estimate available 

within the PMSR Study Area so a new 

density layer was developed for harbor 

porpoise. Forney et al. (2014) provided 

uniform density for harbor porpoise for 

the species as a whole in California 

(Figure 7–25 in the Density Technical 

Report). Although these density 

estimates may not fully describe PMSR 

interannual variability, fluctuations in 

population size, or spatial distributions, 

they represent the best available science 

due to the paucity of other data. 

NMFS coordinated with the Navy in 

the development of its take estimates 

and concurs that the Navy’s approach 

for density appropriately utilizes the 

best available science. Later, in the 

Preliminary Analysis and Negligible 

Impact Determination section, we assess 

how the estimated take numbers 

compare to abundance in order to better 

understand the potential number of 

individuals impacted. 

Take Estimation 

The 2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS 

considered all training and testing 

activities proposed to occur in the 

PMSR Study Area that have the 

potential to result in the MMPA-defined 

take of marine mammals. The Navy 

determined that the three stressors 

below could result in the incidental 

taking of marine mammals. NMFS has 

reviewed the Navy’s data and analysis 

and determined that it is complete and 

accurate and agrees that the following 

stressors from the Navy’s proposed 

activities have the potential to result in 

takes by harassment. 

D Acoustics (weapons firing noise; 

Explosions at or near the water surface 

can introduce loud, impulsive, 

broadband sounds into the marine 

environment); 

D Explosives (explosive shock wave 

and sound at or near the water surface 

(<10 m)); and 

D Land-based launch noise on SNI 

from missiles and rocket launches. 

To predict marine mammal exposures 

to explosives, and because there is 

currently no means to model impacts on 

marine mammals from in-air 

detonations, the Navy’s analysis 

conservatively models all detonations 

occurring within 10 m above the water’s 

surface, as a point source located 10 

centimeters underwater (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2019a). The 

model also assumes that all acoustic 

energy from the detonation remains 

underwater with no sound transmitted 

into the air. Important considerations 

must be factored into the analysis of 

results with these modeling 

assumptions, given that the peak 

pressure and sound from a detonation in 

air significantly decreases as it is 

partially reflected by the water’s surface 

and partially transmitted underwater, as 

detailed in the following paragraphs. 

The Navy performed a quantitative 

analysis to estimate the probability that 

marine mammals could be exposed to 

the sound and energy from explosions 

during Navy testing and training 

activities and the effects of those 

exposures. The effects of underwater 

explosions on marine mammals depend 

on a variety of factors including animal 

size and depth; charge size and depth; 

depth of the water column; and distance 

between the animal and the charge. In 

general, an animal near the water 

surface would be less susceptible to 

injury because the pressure wave 

reflected from the water surface would 

interfere with the direct path pressure 

wave, reducing positive pressure 

exposure. 

The quantitative analysis process 

(used for the 2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS and 

the Navy’s take request in the 

rulemaking/LOA application) to 

estimate potential exposures to marine 

mammals resulting from acoustic and 

explosive stressors is detailed in the 

technical report titled Quantifying 

Acoustic Impacts on Marine Species: 

Methods and Analytical Approach for 

Activities at the Point Mugu Sea Range 

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2020). 

The Navy Acoustic Effects Model 

(NAEMO) brings together scenario 

simulations of the Navy’s activities, 

sound propagation modeling, and 

marine mammal distribution (based on 

density and group size) by species to 

model and quantify the exposure of 

marine mammals above identified 

thresholds for behavioral harassment, 

TTS, PTS, non-auditory injury (lung and 

GI), and serious injury and mortality. 

NAEMO estimates acoustic and 

explosive effects without taking 

mitigation or avoidance into account; 

therefore, the model overestimates 

predicted impacts on marine mammals 

within mitigation zones. The NAEMO 

(animal movement) model overestimates 

the number of marine mammals that 

would be exposed to sound sources that 

could cause PTS because the model 

does not consider horizontal movement 

of animats, including avoidance of high 

intensity sound exposures. As a general 

matter, NMFS does not prescribe the 

methods for estimating take for any 

applicant, but we review and ensure 

that applicants use the best available 

science, and methodologies that are 

logical and technically sound. 

Applicants may use different methods 

of calculating take (especially when 

using models) and still get to a result 

that is representative of the best 

available science and that allows for a 

rigorous and accurate evaluation of the 

effects on the affected populations. 

There are multiple aspects of the Navy’s 

take estimation methods—propagation 

models, animat movement models, and 

behavioral thresholds, for example. 

NMFS evaluates the acceptability of 

these aspects as they evolve and are 

used in different rules and impact 

analyses. Some of the aspects of the 

Navy’s take estimation process have 

been used in Navy incidental take rules 

since 2009 and have undergone 

multiple public comment processes; all 

of them have undergone extensive 

internal Navy review, and all of them 

have undergone comprehensive review 

by NMFS, has sometimes resulted in 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37821 

modifications to methods or models. 

The Navy uses rigorous review 

processes (verification, validation, and 

accreditation processes, peer and public 

review) to ensure the data and 

methodology it uses represent the best 

available science. For instance, the 

NAEMO model is the result of a NMFSled Center for Independent Experts (CIE) 

review of the components used in 

earlier models. The acoustic 

propagation component of the NAEMO 

model (CASS/GRAB) is accredited by 

the Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Master Library (OAML), and many of 

the environmental variables used in the 

NAEMO model come from approved 

OAML databases and are based on insitu data collection. The animal density 

components of the NAEMO model are 

base products of the NMSDD, which 

includes animal density components 

that have been validated and reviewed 

by a variety of scientists from NMFS 

Science Centers and academic 

institutions. Finally the NAEMO model 

simulation components underwent QA/ 

QC review and validation for model 

parts such as the scenario builder, 

acoustic builder, scenario simulator, 

etc., conducted by qualified statisticians 

and modelers to ensure accuracy. Other 

models and methodologies have gone 

through similar review processes. 

In summary, we believe the Navy’s 

methods, including the underlying 

NAEMO modeling, are the most 

appropriate methods for predicting nonauditory injury, PTS, TTS, and 

behavioral disturbance. We would 

describe the application of these 

methods as identifying the maximum 

number of instances in which marine 

mammals would be reasonably expected 

to be taken through PTS, TTS, or 

behavioral disturbance. 

Summary of Estimated Take Request 

From Training and Testing Activities 

Based on the methods discussed in 

the previous sections and the Navy’s 

model, the Navy provided its take 

estimate and request for authorization of 

takes incidental to the use of explosive 

sources and target/missile launches for 

training and testing activities both 

annually (based on the maximum 

number of activities that could occur 

per year) and over the seven-year period 

covered by the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA 

application. NMFS has reviewed the 

Navy’s data, methodology, and analysis 

and determined that it is complete and 

accurate. NMFS agrees that the 

estimates for incidental takes by 

harassment from all sources requested 

for authorization are the maximum 

number of instances in which marine 

mammals are reasonably expected to be 

taken. 

Estimated Harassment Take From 

Training and Testing Activities 

Tables 18 and 19 summarize the 

Navy’s take estimate, which NMFS 

concurs with, and includes the 

maximum amount of Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

reasonably expected to occur by species 

and stock for explosives and missile 

launch activities on SNI expected 

annually and for the seven-year period. 

TABLE 18—PROPOSED ANNUAL AND SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES-SPECIFIC TAKE ESTIMATES FROM EXPLOSIVES FOR

ALL TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE PMSR STUDY AREA (NOT INCLUSIVE OF LAUNCH EVENTS ON SNI) 

Common name Stock/DPS 

Proposed annual take by Level A and 

Level B harassment 

Proposed 7-year total take by Level A 

and Level B harassment ** 

Behavioral 

response TTS PTS Behavioral response TTS PTS 

Blue whale * ...................... Eastern North Pacific ....... 7 4 0 52 27 0 

Bryde’s whale ................... Eastern Tropical Pacific .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Fin whale * ........................ California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

14 7 1 101 46 7 

Gray whale ........................ Eastern North Pacific ....... 9 5 0 65 37 0 

Western North Pacific † .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Humpback whale * ............ California, Oregon, and 

Washington/Mexico 

DPS.

7 4 0 52 29 0 

California, Oregon, and 

Washington/Central 

America DPS.

1 0 0 6 0 0 

Minke whale ...................... California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

2 1 0 15 6 0 

Sei whale * ........................ Eastern North Pacific ....... 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Baird’s beaked whale ....... California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bottlenose dolphin ............ California Coastal ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 

California, Oregon, and 

Washington Offshore.

5 5 1 37 36 4 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ..... California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dall’s porpoise .................. California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

261 406 49 1,824 2,845 341 

Dwarf sperm whale ........... California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

20 31 6 142 217 43 

Harbor Porpoise ................ Morro Bay ......................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Killer whale ....................... Eastern North Pacific Offshore.0 0 0 0 0 0 

Eastern North Pacific 

Transient or West Coast 

Transient 6.

0 0 0 0 0 0 

Long-beaked common dolphin.California .......................... 66 44 9 454 310 65 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37822 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 18—PROPOSED ANNUAL AND SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES-SPECIFIC TAKE ESTIMATES FROM EXPLOSIVES FOR

ALL TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE PMSR STUDY AREA (NOT INCLUSIVE OF LAUNCH EVENTS ON SNI)— 

Continued 

Common name Stock/DPS 

Proposed annual take by Level A and 

Level B harassment 

Proposed 7-year total take by Level A 

and Level B harassment ** 

Behavioral 

response TTS PTS Behavioral response TTS PTS 

Mesoplodont spp .............. California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

0 0 0 0 0 0 

Northern right whale dolphin.California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

3 2 1 22 16 4 

Pacific white-sided dolphin California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

11 8 2 76 58 14 

Pygmy killer whale ............ NSD .................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Pygmy sperm whale ......... California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

20 31 6 141 219 44 

Risso’s dolphins ................ California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

6 3 1 39 24 6 

Short-beaked common 

dolphin.

California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

90 65 15 630 456 103 

Short-finned pilot whale .... California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sperm whale* ................... California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

1 1 0 7 8 0 

Striped dolphin .................. California, Oregon, and 

Washington.

1 1 0 5 4 0 

Harbor seal ....................... California .......................... 202 120 14 1,415 842 99 

Northern elephant seal ..... California .......................... 37 63 22 258 444 152 

California sea lion ............. U.S. Stock ........................ 8 12 2 58 81 16 

Guadalupe fur seal* .......... Mexico to California .......... 1 1 0 5 7 0 

Northern fur seal ............... California .......................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 

* ESA-listed species in PMSR. 

** 7-year total impacts may differ from the annual total times seven as a result of standard rounding. 

† Only the indicated DPS is ESA-listed. 

Note: NSD = No stock designation. 

TABLE 19—ANNUAL AND SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES-SPECIFIC TAKE ESTIMATES PROPOSED FROM TARGET AND MISSILE

LAUNCH ACTIVITIES ON SNI IN THE PMSR STUDY AREA

Species Stock 

Proposed 

annual take 

by Level B 

harassment 

Proposed 7- 

year total take 

by Level B 

harassment 

California sea lion ...................................................................................... U.S ................................................... 11,000 77,000 

Harbor seal ................................................................................................ California ......................................... 480 3,360 

Northern elephant seal .............................................................................. California ......................................... 40 280 

Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA, NMFS must set forth the 

permissible methods of taking pursuant 

to the activity, and other means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on the species or stocks and 

their habitat, paying particular attention 

to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas 

of similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

subsistence uses (‘‘least practicable 

adverse impact’’). NMFS does not have 

a regulatory definition for least 

practicable adverse impact. The 2004 

NDAA amended the MMPA as it relates 

to military readiness activities and the 

incidental take authorization process 

such that a determination of ‘‘least 

practicable adverse impact’’ shall 

include consideration of personnel 

safety, practicality of implementation, 

and impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity. 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors. (1) The first factor is the 

manner in which, and the degree to 

which, the successful implementation of 

the measure(s) is expected to reduce 

impacts to marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This analysis 

considers the nature of the potential 

adverse impact (likelihood, scope, and 

range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned). 

(2) The second factor is the 

practicability of the measures for 

applicant implementation, which may 

consider such things as cost, impact on 

operations, and, in the case of a military 

readiness activity, specifically considers 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

We refer the reader to the Navy’s 

Northwest Training and Testing 

(NWTT) rule (85 FR 72312; November 

12, 2020) for further explanation of our 

interpretation of least practicable 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37823 

adverse impact, and what distinguishes 

it from the negligible impact standard. 

Assessment of Mitigation Measures for 

the PMSR Study Area 

Section 216.104(a)(11) of NMFS’ 

implementing regulations requires an 

applicant for incidental take 

authorization to include in its request, 

among other things, ‘‘the availability 

and feasibility (economic and 

technological) of equipment, methods, 

and manner of conducting such activity 

or other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact upon the 

affected species or stocks, their habitat, 

and [where applicable] on their 

availability for subsistence uses, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance.’’ Thus NMFS’ analysis of 

the sufficiency and appropriateness of 

an applicant’s measures under the least 

practicable adverse impact standard will 

always begin with evaluation of the 

mitigation measures presented in the 

application. 

NMFS has fully reviewed the 

specified activities and the mitigation 

measures included in the Navy’s 

rulemaking/LOA application and the 

2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS to determine if 

the mitigation measures would result in 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

marine mammals and their habitat. 

NMFS worked with the Navy in the 

development of the Navy’s initially 

proposed measures, which were 

informed by years of implementation 

and monitoring. A complete discussion 

of the Navy’s evaluation process used to 

develop, assess, and select mitigation, 

which was informed by input from 

NMFS, can be found in Section 5 

(Standing Operating Procedures and 

Mitigation) of the 2020 PMSR DEIS/ 

OEIS. The process described in Section 

5 (Standing Operating Procedures and 

Mitigation) of the 2020 PMSR DEIS/ 

OEIS robustly supported NMFS’ 

independent evaluation of whether the 

mitigation measures meet the least 

practicable adverse impact standard. 

The Navy would be required to 

implement the mitigation measures 

identified in this rule for the full seven 

years to avoid or reduce potential 

impacts from explosives, launch 

activities, and physical disturbance and 

vessel strike stressors. 

As a general matter, where an 

applicant proposes measures that are 

likely to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, the fact that they are 

included in the application indicates 

that the measures are practicable, and it 

is not necessary for NMFS to conduct a 

detailed analysis of the measures the 

applicant proposed (rather, they are 

simply included). However, it is still 

necessary for NMFS to consider whether 

there are additional practicable 

measures that would meaningfully 

reduce the probability or severity of 

impacts that could affect reproductive 

success or survivorship. 

Overall, the Navy has agreed to 

procedural mitigation measures that 

would reduce the probability and/or 

severity of impacts expected to result 

from acute exposure to explosives and 

launch activities, vessel strike, and 

impacts to marine mammal habitat. 

Specifically, the Navy would use a 

combination of delayed starts, and cease 

firing to avoid mortality or serious 

injury, minimize the likelihood or 

severity of PTS or other injury, and 

reduce instances of TTS or more severe 

behavioral disruption caused by 

explosives and launch activities. 

The Navy assessed the practicability 

of the proposed measures in the context 

of personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and their impacts on 

the Navy’s ability to meet their Title 10 

requirements and found that the 

measures are supportable. As described 

in more detail below, NMFS has 

independently evaluated the measures 

the Navy proposed in consideration of 

their ability to reduce adverse impacts 

on marine mammal species and their 

habitat and their practicability for 

implementation. We have preliminarily 

determined that the measures will 

significantly and adequately reduce 

impacts on the affected marine mammal 

species and stocks and their habitat and, 

further, be practicable for Navy 

implementation. Therefore, the 

mitigation measures assure that the 

Navy’s activities will have the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

species or stocks and their habitat. 

The Navy also evaluated numerous 

measures in the 2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS 

that were not included in the Navy’s 

rulemaking/LOA application, and 

NMFS independently reviewed and 

preliminarily concurs with the Navy’s 

analysis that their inclusion was not 

appropriate under the least practicable 

adverse impact standard based on our 

assessment. The Navy considered these 

additional potential mitigation measures 

in two groups. First, Chapter 5 

(Standing Operating Procedures and 

Mitigation) of the 2020 PMSR DEIS/ 

OEIS, in the Measures Considered but 

Eliminated section, includes an analysis 

of an array of different types of 

mitigation that have been recommended 

over the years by non-governmental 

organizations or the public, through 

scoping or public comment on 

environmental compliance documents. 

As described in Chapter 5 (Standing 

Operating Procedures and Mitigation) of 

the 2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS, commenters 

sometimes recommend that the Navy 

reduce explosive use, or include area 

restrictions. Many of these mitigation 

measures could potentially reduce the 

number of marine mammals taken, via 

direct reduction of the activities or 

amounts. However, as described in 

Chapter 5 (Standing Operating 

Procedures and Mitigation) of the 2020 

PMSR DEIS/OEIS, the Navy needs to 

train and test in the conditions in which 

it conducts warfare, and these types of 

modifications fundamentally change the 

activity in a manner that would not 

support the purpose and need for the 

training and testing (i.e., are entirely 

impracticable) and therefore are not 

considered further. NMFS finds the 

Navy’s explanation for why adoption of 

these recommendations would 

unacceptably undermine the purpose of 

the testing and training persuasive. 

After independent review, NMFS finds 

Navy’s judgment on the impacts of 

potential mitigation measures to 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and the effectiveness of 

training and testing within the PMSR 

Study Area persuasive, and for these 

reasons, NMFS finds that these 

measures do not meet the least 

practicable adverse impact standard 

because they are not practicable. 

Second, in Chapter 5 (Standing 

Operating Procedures and Mitigation) of 

the 2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS, the Navy 

evaluated an additional potential 

procedural mitigation measure, the use 

of thermal detection. The use of thermal 

detection had the potential to 

incrementally reduce take to some 

degree in certain circumstances, though 

the degree to which this would occur is 

typically low or uncertain. However, as 

described in the Navy’s analysis, the 

measures would have significant direct 

negative effects on mission effectiveness 

and are considered impracticable (see 

Section 5 Standing Operating 

Procedures and Mitigation of 2020 

PMSR DEIS/OEIS). NMFS 

independently reviewed the Navy’s 

evaluation and concurs with this 

assessment, which supports NMFS’ 

preliminary findings that the 

impracticability of this additional 

mitigation measure would greatly 

outweigh any potential minor reduction 

in marine mammal impacts that might 

result; therefore, this additional 

mitigation measure is not warranted. 

Section 5 (Standing Operating 

Procedures and Mitigation) of the 2020 

PMSR DEIS/OEIS also describes a 

comprehensive method for analyzing 

potential geographic mitigation that 

includes consideration of both a 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37824 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

biological assessment of how the 

potential time/area limitation would 

benefit the species and its habitat (e.g., 

is a key area of biological importance or 

would result in avoidance or reduction 

of impacts) in the context of the 

stressors of concern in the specific area 

and an operational assessment of the 

practicability of implementation (e.g., 

including an assessment of the specific 

importance of that area for training, 

considering proximity to training ranges 

and emergency landing fields and other 

issues). For most of the areas that were 

considered in the 2020 PMSR DEIS/ 

OEIS but not included in this rule, the 

Navy found that geographic mitigation 

was not warranted because the 

anticipated reduction of adverse 

impacts on marine mammal species and 

their habitat was not sufficient to offset 

the impracticability of implementation. 

The Navy considered that moving 

activities farther from SNI and outside 

of the SNI Feeding Area would not be 

practicable, because the added distance 

would substantially limit the 

capabilities of ground-based telemetry 

systems, antennas, surveillance, and 

metric radar systems, as well as 

command transmitter systems located at 

Point Mugu, Laguna Peak, Santa Cruz 

Island, and SNI. These systems are 

required to measure, monitor, and 

control various test platforms in real 

time; collect transmitted data for post 

event analysis; and enable surveillance 

of the area to ensure the safety of the 

public. Optimal functional distance for 

some of the ground-based radar systems 

is 10–200 nmi and may be limited by 

line-of-sight for some systems. Groundbased telemetry systems rely on using 

in-place fiber optic cables directly 

linked to remote locations or microwave 

to transmit signals. The ground-based 

command transmitter system provides 

safe, controlled testing of unmanned 

targets, platforms, and missiles, 

including unmanned aircraft, boat or 

ship targets, ballistic missiles, and other 

long-range vehicles, all within a 40-mi 

radius of the transmitter. The command 

transmitter system also provides flight 

termination capability for weapons and 

targets that are considered too 

hazardous for test flights. Relocating 

ground-based instrumentation to other 

locations would result in an extensive 

cost to the Navy, or potentially reduce 

military readiness. 

NMFS has reviewed the Navy’s 

analysis in Section 5 Standing 

Operating Procedures and Mitigation of 

the 2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS, which 

considers the same factors that NMFS 

considers to satisfy the least practicable 

adverse impact standard, and 

preliminarily concurs with the analysis 

and conclusions. Therefore, NMFS is 

not proposing to include any of the 

measures that the Navy ruled out in the 

2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS. Below are the 

mitigation measures that NMFS 

determined will ensure the least 

practicable adverse impact on all 

affected species and their habitat, 

including the specific considerations for 

military readiness activities. The 

following sections describe the 

mitigation measures that would be 

implemented in association with the 

training and testing activities analyzed 

in this document. The mitigation 

measures all consist of procedural 

mitigation. 

Procedural Mitigation 

Procedural mitigation is mitigation 

that the Navy would implement 

whenever and wherever an applicable 

training or testing activity takes place 

within the PMSR Study Area. 

Procedural mitigation generally 

involves: (1) The use of one or more 

trained Lookouts to diligently observe 

for specific biological resources 

(including marine mammals) within a 

mitigation zone, (2) requirements for 

Lookouts to immediately communicate 

sightings of specific biological resources 

to the appropriate watch station for 

information dissemination, and (3) 

requirements for the watch station to 

implement mitigation (e.g., halt an 

activity) until certain recommencement 

conditions have been met. The first 

procedural mitigation (Table 20) is 

designed to aid Lookouts and other 

applicable Navy personnel with their 

observation, environmental compliance, 

and reporting responsibilities. The 

remainder of the procedural mitigation 

measures (Tables 21 through 29) are 

organized by stressor type and activity 

category and include acoustic stressors 

(i.e., weapons firing noise), explosive 

stressors (i.e., medium-caliber and largecaliber projectiles, missiles and rockets, 

bombs), and physical disturbance and 

strike stressors (i.e., vessel movement, 

small-, medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions, nonexplosive missiles, and non-explosive 

bombs). 

TABLE 20—MITIGATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AND EDUCATION

Mitigation description 

Stressor or Activity: 

• All testing and training activities, as applicable. 

Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: 

• Appropriate personnel involved in mitigation and training or testing activity reporting under the Proposed Action will complete one or more 

modules of the U.S Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series, as identified in their career path training plan. Modules include: 

Æ Introduction to the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series. The introductory module provides information on environmental laws (e.g., ESA, MMPA) and the corresponding responsibilities relevant to Navy testing and training. The material explains why environmental compliance is important in supporting the Navy’s commitment to environmental stewardship. 

Æ Marine Species Awareness Training. All bridge watch personnel, Commanding Officers, Executive Officers, maritime patrol aircraft 

aircrews, anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare rotary-wing aircrews, Lookouts, and equivalent civilian personnel must successfully complete the Marine Species Awareness Training prior to standing watch or serving as a Lookout. The Marine Species Awareness Training provides information on sighting cues, visual observation tools and techniques, and sighting notification procedures. 

Navy biologists developed Marine Species Awareness Training to improve the effectiveness of visual observations for biological resources, focusing on marine mammals and sea turtles, and including floating vegetation, jellyfish aggregations, and flocks of 

seabirds. 

Æ U.S. Navy Protective Measures Assessment Protocol. This module provides the necessary instruction for accessing mitigation requirements during the event planning phase using the Protective Measures Assessment Protocol software tool. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37825 

Mitigation measures for weapons 

firing noise as an acoustic stressor is 

provided below in Table 21. 

TABLE 21—MITIGATION FOR WEAPONS FIRING NOISE

Mitigation description 

Stressor or Activity Mitigation Applies to: 

• Weapons firing noise associated with large-caliber gunnery activities. 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: 

• 1 Lookout positioned on the ship conducting the firing. 

—Depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one described in Table 22 (Mitigation for Small-, Medium-, and

Large-Caliber Non-Explosive Practice Munitions). 

Mitigation Requirements: 

• Mitigation zone: 

—30° on either side of the firing line out to 70 yd. from the muzzle of the weapon being fired. 

• Prior to the initial start of the activity: 

—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. 

—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals if observed, relocate or delay the start of weapons firing. 

• During the activity: 

—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if observed, cease weapons firing. 

• Conditions for commencing/recommencing the activity after a marine mammal before or during the activity: 

—The Navy will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the 

start) or during the activity (by not recommencing weapons firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal 

is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its 

course, speed, and movement relative to the firing ship; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 

min.; or (4) for mobile activities, the firing ship has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the 

location of the last sighting and there have been no new sightings. 

The Navy will implement mitigation 

measures to avoid or reduce potential 

impacts on marine mammals from the 

explosive stressors occurring at or near 

the surface resulting in underwater 

noise and energy. Mitigation measures 

for explosive stressors are provided in 

Table 22 through Table 24. 

TABLE 22—MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MEDIUM-CALIBER AND LARGE-CALIBER PROJECTILES

Mitigation description 

Stressor or Activity Mitigation Applies to: 

• Gunnery activities using explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles. 

• Activities using a maritime surface target. 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: 

• 1 Lookout on the vessel or aircraft conducting the activity. 

—For activities using explosive large-caliber projectiles, depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one described in Table 21 (Mitigation for Weapons Firing Noise). 

• If additional platforms are participating in the activity, personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) will support 

observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties. 

Mitigation Requirements: 

• Mitigation zones: 

—200 yd (182.88 m) around the intended impact location for air-to-surface activities using explosive medium-caliber projectiles, or 

—600 yd (548.64 m) around the intended impact location for surface-to-surface activities using explosive medium-caliber projectiles, or 

—1,000 yd (914.4 m) around the intended impact location for surface-to-surface activities using explosive large-caliber projectiles. 

• Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station): 

—Observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. 

—During the activity, observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is observed, cease firing. 

• Conditions for commencing/recommencing the activity after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: 

—The Navy will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the 

start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have

exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; (3) 

the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min. for aircraft-based firing or 30 min. for vessel-based firing; 

or (4) for activities using mobile targets, the intended impact location has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation 

zone size beyond the location of the last sighting and there have been no new sightings . 

• After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station): 

—When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), observe 

the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals, follow established incident reporting procedures. 

If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these assets will assist in the visual observation of the area 

where detonations occurred. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37826 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 23—MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MISSILES AND ROCKETS

Mitigation description 

Stressor or Activity Mitigation Applies to: 

• Aircraft-deployed explosive missiles and rockets. 

• Activities using a maritime surface target at ranges up to 75 nmi. 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: 

• 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft. 

• If additional platforms are participating in the activity, personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) will support 

observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties. 

Mitigation Requirements: 

• Mitigation zones: 

—900 yd (822.96 m) around the intended impact location for missiles or rockets with 0.6–20 lb net explosive weight. 

—2,000 yd (1,828.8 m) around the intended impact location for missiles with 21–500 lb net explosive weight. 

• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the mitigation zone): 

—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. 

—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of firing. 

• During the activity: 

—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if observed, cease firing. 

• Conditions for commencing/recommencing the activity after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: 

—The Navy will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the 

start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its 

course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional 

sightings for 10 min. when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min. when the activity involves aircraft that 

are not typically fuel constrained. 

• After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station): 

—When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), observe 

the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals or ESA-listed species are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures. 

If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these assets will assist in the visual observation of the area 

where detonations occurred. 

TABLE 24—MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE BOMBS

Mitigation description 

Stressor or Activity Mitigation Applies to: 

• Explosive bombs. 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: 

• 1 Lookout positioned in the aircraft conducting the activity. 

• If additional platforms are participating in the activity, personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) will support 

observing the mitigation zone for applicable biological resources while performing their regular duties. 

Mitigation Requirements: 

• Mitigation zone: 

—2,500 yd (2,286 m) around the intended target. 

• Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when arriving on station): 

—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation and marine mammals; If floating vegetation or marine mammals are observed,

Navy personnel must relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment. 

• During the activity (e.g., during target approach): 

—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if observed, cease bomb deployment. 

• Conditions for commencing/recommencing of the activity after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: 

—The Navy will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the 

start) or during the activity (by not recommencing bomb deployment) until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) 

The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended target; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min.; or (4) for activities using mobile targets, the intended target has transited a distance equal to double that 

of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting and there have been no new sightings. 

• After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station): 

—When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), observe 

the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals or ESA-listed species are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures. 

—If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), these assets will assist in the visual observation 

of the area where detonations occurred. 

Mitigation for physical disturbance 

and strike stressors are provided in 

Table 25 through Table 29. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37827 

TABLE 25—MITIGATION FOR VESSEL MOVEMENT

Mitigation description 

Stressor or Activity Mitigation Applies to: 

• Vessel movement. 

• The mitigation will not be required if (1) the vessel’s safety is threatened, (2) the vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver (e.g., during 

launching and recovery of aircraft or landing craft, during towing activities, when mooring, etc.), (3) the vessel is operated autonomously, 

or (4) when impracticable based on mission requirements (e.g., There are a few specific testing and training events that include requirements for certain systems where vessels would operate at higher speeds. As an example, some tests involve using the High-Speed Maneuvering Surface Target (HSMST). During these events, ships must operate across the full spectrum of capable speeds to accomplish 

the primary testing objectives). 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: 

• 1 Lookout on the vessel that is underway. 

Mitigation Requirements: 

• Mitigation zone: 

—500 yd (457.2 m) around whales. 

—200 yd (182.88 m) around all other marine mammals (except bow-riding dolphins and pinnipeds hauled out on man-made navigational structures, port structures, and vessels). 

• During the activity: 

—When underway, observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, maneuver to maintain distance. 

• Additional requirements: 

—If a marine mammal vessel strike occurs, the Navy will follow the established incident reporting procedures. 

TABLE 26—MITIGATION FOR SMALL-, MEDIUM-, AND LARGE-CALIBER NON-EXPLOSIVE PRACTICE MUNITIONS

Mitigation description 

Stressor or Activity Mitigation Applies to: 

• Gunnery activities using small-, medium-, and large-caliber non-explosive practice munitions. 

• Activities using a maritime surface target. 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: 

• 1 Lookout positioned on the platform conducting the activity. 

• Depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one described in Table 21 (Mitigation for Weapons Firing Noise). 

Mitigation Requirements: 

• Mitigation zone: 

—200 yd (182.88 m) around the intended impact location. 

• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station): 

—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. 

—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of firing. 

• During the activity: 

—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if observed, cease firing. 

• Conditions for commencing/recommencing the activity after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: 

—The Navy will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the 

start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its 

course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional 

sightings for 10 min. for aircraft-based firing or 30 min. for vessel-based firing; or (4) for activities using a mobile target, the intended 

impact location has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting and 

there have been no new sightings. 

TABLE 27—MITIGATION FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE MISSILES AND ROCKETS

Mitigation description 

Stressor or Activity Mitigation Applies to: 

• Aircraft-deployed non-explosive missiles and rockets. 

• Activities using a maritime surface target at ranges of up to 75 nmi. 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: 

• 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft. 

Mitigation Requirements: 

• Mitigation zone: 

—900 yd (822.96 m) around the intended impact location. 

• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the mitigation zone): 

—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start until the mitigation zone is clear. 

—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of firing. 

• During the activity: 

—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if observed, cease firing. 

• Conditions for commencing/recommencing the activity after a marine mammal sighting prior to or during the activity: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37828 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 27—MITIGATION FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE MISSILES AND ROCKETS—Continued 

Mitigation description 

—The Navy will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the 

start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its 

course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional 

sightings for 10 min. when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min. when the activity involves aircraft that 

are not typically fuel constrained. 

TABLE 28—MITIGATION FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE BOMBS

Mitigation description 

Stressor or Activity Mitigation Applies to: 

• Non-explosive bombs. 

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: 

• 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft. 

Mitigation Requirements: 

• Mitigation zone: 

—900 yd (822.96 m) around the intended impact location. 

• Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when arriving on station): 

—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation; if observed, relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment until the mitigation 

zone is clear. 

—Observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment. 

• During the activity (e.g., during approach of the target): 

—Observe the mitigation zone for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if observed, cease bomb deployment. 

• Conditions for commencing/recommencing the activity after a marine mammal sighting prior to or during the activity: 

The Navy will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) 

or during the activity (by not recommencing bomb deployment or mine laying) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) 

The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended target or minefield location; (3) the mitigation zone has been 

clear from any additional sightings for 10 min.; or (4) for activities using mobile targets, the intended target has transited a distance 

equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting and there have been no new sightings.

Target and Missile Launches from SNI 

Mitigation for target and missile 

launch activities from SNI are provided 

below in Table 29. 

TABLE 29—MITIGATION FOR TARGET AND MISSILE LAUNCHES FROM SNI 

Mitigation description 

Stressor or Activity Mitigation Applies to: 

• Target and Missile launches from SNI. 

Mitigation Requirements: 

• Navy personnel shall not enter pinniped haulouts or rookeries. Personnel may be adjacent to pinniped haulouts and rookeries prior to 

and following a launch for monitoring purposes. 

• Missiles shall not cross over pinniped haulouts at elevations less than 305 m (1,000 ft) above the haulout. 

• The Navy must not conduct more than 40 launch events annually. 

• The Navy must not conduct more than 10 launch events at night of the 40 annual launch events. 

• Launches shall be scheduled to avoid peak pinniped pupping periods between January and July, to the maximum extent practicable.

• All manned aircraft and helicopter flight paths must maintain a minimum distance of 305 m (1,000 ft) from recognized pinniped haulouts 

and rookeries, except in emergencies or for real-time security incidents. 

• For unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), the following minimum altitudes must be maintained over pinniped haulout areas and rookeries: 

Class 0–2 UAS must maintain a minimum altitude of 300 ft; Class 3 UAS must maintain a minimum altitude of 500 ft; Class 4 or 5 UAS 

must not be flown below 1,000 ft. 

• If a species for which authorization has not been granted is taken, or a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized takes are met, the Navy must consult with NMFS to determine how to proceed. 

• The Navy must review the launch procedure and monitoring methods, in cooperation with NMFS, if any incidents of injury or mortality of 

a pinniped are discovered during post-launch surveys, or if surveys indicate possible effects to the distribution, size, or productivity of the 

affected pinniped populations as a result of the specified activities. If necessary, appropriate changes must be made through modification 

to this Authorization prior to conducting the next launch of the same vehicle. 

In addition, the Navy proposes to 

issue awareness notification messages 

seasonally to alert ships and aircraft to 

the possible presence of concentrations 

of large whales in the PMSR Study Area. 

In order to maintain safety of navigation 

and to avoid interactions with large 

whales during transit, vessels will be 

instructed to remain vigilant to the 

presence of certain large whale species, 

which, especially when concentrated 

seasonally, may become vulnerable to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37829 

vessel strikes. Lookouts will use the 

information from the awareness 

notification messages to assist their 

visual observations of mitigation zones 

and to aid in implementing mitigation. 

The Navy anticipates that providing 

Lookouts additional information about 

the possible presence of concentrations 

of large whales in certain locations 

seasonally will likely help the Navy 

further avoid interactions with these 

animals during vessel transits and when 

training and testing activities are 

conducted in the PMSR Study Area. The 

Navy would follow reporting 

requirements should a vessel strike 

occur. The Navy would issue awareness 

notification messages (Table 30) for the 

following species and seasons. 

TABLE 30—LARGE WHALE AWARENESS NOTIFICATION MESSAGES

Blue Whale Awareness Notification Message (June 1–October 31), Gray Whale Awareness Notification Message (November 1–March 31), and 

Fin Whale Awareness Notification Message (November 1–May 31): 

• The Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft operating in the area to the possible presence 

of concentrations of large whales, including blue whales (June 1 through October 31), gray whales (November 1 through March 31) and 

fin whales (November 1 through May 31). 

• To maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during transits, the Navy will instruct vessels to remain vigilant to the presence of large whale species (including blue whales), that when concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes. 

• Lookouts will use the information from the awareness notification messages to assist their visual observation of applicable mitigation 

zones during testing and training activities and to aid in the implementation of mitigation observation of applicable mitigation zones during 

testing and training activities and to aid in the implementation of mitigation. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

Navy’s proposed mitigation measures— 

many of which were developed with 

NMFS’ input during the previous 

phases of Navy training and testing 

authorizations—and considered a broad 

range of other measures (i.e., the 

measures considered but eliminated in 

the 2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS, which 

reflect many of the comments that have 

arisen via NMFS or public input in past 

years) in the context of ensuring that 

NMFS prescribes the means of effecting 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

the affected marine mammal species 

and their habitat. Our evaluation of 

potential measures included 

consideration of the following factors in 

relation to one another: The manner in 

which, and the degree to which, the 

successful implementation of the 

mitigation measures is expected to 

reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude 

of adverse impacts to marine mammal 

species and their habitat; the proven or 

likely efficacy of the measures; and the 

practicability of the measures for 

applicant implementation, including 

consideration of personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity. 

Based on our evaluation of the Navy’s 

proposed measures, as well as other 

measures considered by the Navy and 

NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that these proposed 

mitigation measures are the appropriate 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on the marine mammal 

species and their habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and considering 

specifically personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity. 

Additionally, an adaptive management 

provision ensures that mitigation is 

regularly assessed and provides a 

mechanism to improve the mitigation, 

based on the factors above, through 

modification as appropriate. 

The proposed rule comment period 

provides the public an opportunity to 

submit recommendations, views, and/or 

concerns regarding the Navy’s activities 

and the proposed mitigation measures. 

While NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s proposed 

mitigation measures would effect the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

affected species and their habitat, NMFS 

will consider all public comments to 

help inform our final determination. 

Consequently, the proposed mitigation 

measures may be refined, modified, 

removed, or added to prior to the 

issuance of the final rule, based on 

public comments received, and, as 

appropriate, analysis of additional 

potential mitigation measures. 

Proposed Monitoring 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA 

states that in order to authorize 

incidental take for an activity, NMFS 

must set forth requirements pertaining 

to the monitoring and reporting of such 

taking. The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

indicate that requests for incidental take 

authorizations must include the 

suggested means of accomplishing the 

necessary monitoring and reporting that 

will result in increased knowledge of 

the species and of the level of taking or 

impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present. 

In the PMSR, the Navy has been 

monitoring missile launches at SNI in 

accordance with the MMPA under IHAs 

or LOAs since 2001 (NMFS, 2014a, 

2019a). Associated with those 

authorizations, monitoring reports 

submitted to NMFS in various periodic 

reports have included sound levels 

measurements from the launches and 

have documented the behavior of 

hauled out pinnipeds before, during, 

and after those launches by direct 

observation and in video recordings 

(Burke, 2017; Holst and Lawson, 2002; 

Holst and Greene Jr., 2005, 2006; Holst 

and Greene Jr., 2008; Holst and Greene 

Jr., 2010; Holst et al., 2011; Holst et al., 

2003; Ugoretz and Greene Jr., 2012; 

Ugoretz, 2014, 2015, 2016). 

In other locations where Navy testing 

and training activities occur, the Navy 

has also been conducting marine 

mammal research and monitoring in the 

Pacific Ocean for decades. A formal 

coordinated marine species monitoring 

program in support of the MMPA and 

ESA authorizations for the Navy Range 

Complexes worldwide was first 

implemented in 2009. This robust 

program has resulted in hundreds of 

technical reports and publications on 

marine mammals that have informed 

Navy and NMFS analyses in 

environmental planning documents, 

rules, and ESA Biological Opinions. The 

reports are made available to the public 

on the Navy’s marine species 

monitoring website 

(www.navymarinespecies

monitoring.us), and the data on the 

Ocean Biogeographic Information 

System Spatial Ecological Analysis of 

Megavertebrate Populations (OBIS– 

SEAMAP) 

(http://seamap.env.duke.edu/). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37830 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

The Navy will continue collecting 

monitoring data to inform our 

understanding of the occurrence of, and 

impacts of the Navy’s activities on, 

marine mammals on SNI in the PMSR 

Study Area. NMFS and the Navy will 

coordinate and discuss how monitoring 

in the PMSR Study Area could 

contribute to the Navy’s Marine Species 

Monitoring Program. Taken together, 

mitigation and monitoring comprise the 

Navy’s integrated approach for reducing 

environmental impacts from the 

specified activities. The Navy’s overall 

monitoring approach seeks to leverage 

and build on existing research efforts 

whenever possible. 

As agreed upon between the Navy and 

NMFS, the monitoring measures 

presented here, as well as the mitigation 

measures described above, focus on the 

protection and management of 

potentially affected marine mammals. A 

well-designed monitoring program can 

provide important feedback for 

validating assumptions made in 

analyses and allow for adaptive 

management of marine resources. 

Monitoring is required under the 

MMPA, and details of the monitoring 

program for the specified activities have 

been developed through coordination 

between NMFS and the Navy through 

the regulatory process for previous Navy 

at-sea training and testing activities. 

Required Monitoring on SNI 

In consultation with NMFS, the Navy 

shall implement a monitoring plan for 

beaches exposed to missile launch noise 

with the goal of assessing baseline 

pinniped distribution/abundance and 

potential changes in pinniped use of 

these beaches after launch events. 

Marine mammal monitoring shall 

include: 

• Multiple surveys (e.g., time-lapse 

photography) during the year that 

record the species, number of animals, 

general behavior, presence of pups, age 

class, gender and reactions to launch 

noise or other natural or human caused 

disturbances, in addition to 

environmental conditions that may 

include tide, wind speed, air 

temperature, and swell. 

• In addition, video and acoustic 

monitoring of up to three pinniped 

haulout areas and rookeries must be 

conducted during launch events that 

include missiles or targets that have not 

been previously monitored using video 

and acoustic recorders for at least three 

launch events. 

Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring 

Program (ICMP) 

The Navy’s ICMP is intended to 

coordinate marine species monitoring 

efforts across all regions and to allocate 

the most appropriate level and type of 

effort for each range complex based on 

a set of standardized objectives, and in 

acknowledgement of regional expertise 

and resource availability. The ICMP is 

designed to be flexible, scalable, and 

adaptable through the adaptive 

management and strategic planning 

processes to periodically assess progress 

and reevaluate objectives. This process 

includes conducting an annual adaptive 

management review meeting, at which 

the Navy and NMFS jointly consider the 

prior-year goals, monitoring results, and 

related scientific advances to determine 

if monitoring plan modifications are 

warranted to more effectively address 

program goals. Although the ICMP does 

not specify actual monitoring field work 

or individual projects, it does establish 

a matrix of goals and objectives that 

have been developed in coordination 

with NMFS. As the ICMP is 

implemented through the Strategic 

Planning Process for Marine Species 

Monitoring, detailed and specific 

studies are developed which support 

the Navy’s and NMFS’ top-level 

monitoring goals. In essence, the ICMP 

directs that monitoring activities 

relating to the effects of Navy training 

and testing activities on marine species 

should be designed to contribute 

towards one or more of the following 

top-level goals: 

b An increase in our understanding 

of the likely occurrence of marine 

mammals and/or ESA-listed marine 

species in the vicinity of the action (i.e., 

presence, abundance, distribution, and/ 

or density of species); 

b An increase in our understanding 

of the nature, scope, or context of the 

likely exposure of marine mammals 

and/or ESA-listed species to any of the 

potential stressor(s) associated with the 

action (e.g., sound, explosive 

detonation, or military expended 

materials) through better understanding 

of the following: (1) The action and the 

environment in which it occurs (e.g., 

sound source characterization, 

propagation, and ambient noise levels); 

(2) the affected species (e.g., life history 

or dive patterns); (3) the likely cooccurrence of marine mammals and/or 

ESA-listed marine species with the 

action (in whole or part); and/or (4) the 

likely biological or behavioral context of 

exposure to the stressor for the marine 

mammal and/or ESA-listed marine 

species (e.g., age class of exposed 

animals or known pupping, calving or 

feeding areas); 

b An increase in our understanding 

of how individual marine mammals or 

ESA-listed marine species respond 

(behaviorally or physiologically) to the 

specific stressors associated with the 

action (in specific contexts, where 

possible, e.g., at what distance or 

received level); 

b An increase in our understanding 

of how anticipated individual 

responses, to individual stressors or 

anticipated combinations of stressors, 

may impact either: (1) The long-term 

fitness and survival of an individual or 

(2) the population, species, or stock 

(e.g., through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival); 

b An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of mitigation and 

monitoring measures; 

b A better understanding and record 

of the manner in which the Navy 

complies with the incidental take 

regulations and LOAs and the ESA 

Incidental Take Statement; 

b An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals (through 

improved technology or methods), both 

specifically within the mitigation zone 

(thus allowing for more effective 

implementation of the mitigation), and 

in general, to better achieve the above 

goals; and 

b Ensuring that adverse impact of 

activities remains at the least practicable 

level. 

Strategic Planning Process for Marine 

Species Monitoring 

The Navy also developed the Strategic 

Planning Process for Marine Species 

Monitoring, which establishes the 

guidelines and processes necessary to 

develop, evaluate, and fund individual 

projects based on objective scientific 

study questions. The process uses an 

underlying framework designed around 

intermediate scientific objectives and a 

conceptual framework incorporating a 

progression of knowledge spanning 

occurrence, exposure, response, and 

consequence. The Strategic Planning 

Process for Marine Species Monitoring 

is used to set overarching intermediate 

scientific objectives; develop individual 

monitoring project concepts; identify 

potential species of interest at a regional 

scale; evaluate, prioritize and select 

specific monitoring projects to fund or 

continue supporting for a given fiscal 

year; execute and manage selected 

monitoring projects; and report and 

evaluate progress and results. This 

process addresses relative investments 

to different range complexes based on 

goals across all range complexes, and 

monitoring will leverage multiple 

techniques for data acquisition and 

analysis whenever possible. The 

Strategic Planning Process for Marine 

Species Monitoring is also available 

online (http://www.navymarinespecies

monitoring.us/). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37831 

NMFS and the Navy will coordinate and 

discuss how monitoring in the PMSR 

Study Area could contribute to the 

Navy’s Marine Species Monitoring 

Program in addition to the monitoring 

that would be conducted on SNI. 

Past and Current Monitoring in the 

PMSR Study Area 

NMFS has received multiple years’ 

worth of annual monitoring reports 

addressing launch activities on SNI 

within the PMSR Study Area and other 

Navy range complexes. The data and 

information contained in these reports 

have been considered in developing 

mitigation and monitoring measures for 

the training and testing activities on SNI 

within the PMSR Study Area. The 

Navy’s annual exercise and monitoring 

reports may be viewed at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities and http://

www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. 

Numerous publications, dissertations, 

and conference presentations have 

resulted from research conducted under 

the Navy’s marine species monitoring 

program (https://

www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/ 

reading-room/publications/), resulting 

in a significant contribution to the body 

of marine mammal science. Publications 

on occurrence, distribution, and density 

have fed the modeling input, and 

publications on exposure and response 

have informed Navy and NMFS 

analyses of behavioral response and 

consideration of mitigation measures. 

Furthermore, collaboration between 

the monitoring program and the Navy’s 

research and development (e.g., the 

Office of Naval Research) and 

demonstration-validation (e.g., Living 

Marine Resources) programs has been 

strengthened, leading to research tools 

and products that have already 

transitioned to the monitoring program. 

These include Marine Mammal 

Monitoring on Ranges (M3R), controlled 

exposure experiment behavioral 

response studies (CEE BRS), acoustic 

sea glider surveys, and global 

positioning system-enabled satellite 

tags. Recent progress has been made 

with better integration of monitoring 

across all Navy at-sea study areas, 

including study areas in the Pacific and 

the Atlantic Oceans, and various testing 

ranges. Publications from the Living 

Marine Resources and the Office of 

Naval Research programs have also 

resulted in significant contributions to 

information on hearing ranges and 

acoustic criteria used in effects 

modeling, exposure, and response, as 

well as developing tools to assess 

biological significance (e.g., populationlevel consequences). 

NMFS and the Navy also consider 

data collected during mitigations as 

monitoring. Data are collected by 

shipboard personnel on hours spent 

training, hours of observation, and 

marine mammals observed within the 

mitigation zones when mitigations are 

implemented. These data are provided 

to NMFS in both classified and 

unclassified annual exercise reports, 

which will continue under this rule. 

Research funded by the Navy that has 

included the PMSR Study Area 

includes, but is not limited to the 

following efforts: 

• The Navy has funded a number of 

passive acoustic monitoring efforts in 

the PMSR Study Area as well as 

locations farther to the south in the 

SOCAL Range Complex. These studies 

have helped to characterize the 

soundscape resulting from general 

anthropogenic sound as well as the 

Navy testing and training sound energy 

contributions (Baumann-Pickering et al., 

2013; Baumann-Pickering et al., 2015a; 

Baumann-Pickering et al., 2018; Curtis 

et al., 2020; Debich et al., 2015a; Debich 

et al., 2015b; Hildebrand et al., 2012; 

Rice et al., 2018a; Rice et al., 2017; Rice 

et al., 2018b; Sirovic et al., 2016; Sirovic 

et al., 2017; Sirovic et al., 2015b; 

Wiggins et al., 2018). 

• Fieldwork involving photo-ID, 

biopsy, visual survey, and satellite 

tagging of blue, fin, and humpback 

whales were undertaken by Oregon 

State University. This research provided 

seasonal movement tracks, distribution, 

and behavior of these species in 

addition to biopsy samples used for sex 

determination and individual 

identifications (Mate et al., 2016; Mate 

et al., 2018b, 2018c; Mate et al., 2015b). 

The findings from this work have been 

instrumental in supplementing our 

understanding of the use of BIAs in the 

PMSR Study Area for these species. 

• The Navy has been collecting 

abundance data and behavioral 

reactions of pinnipeds during target and 

missile launch on SNI since 2001. The 

marine mammals monitoring reports for 

SNI can be found here https://

www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/ 

reporting/pacific/. 

Additional details on the scientific 

objectives for the Navy’s marine species 

monitoring program in the Pacific (and 

elsewhere) can be found at https://

www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/ 

regions/pacific/current-projects/. 

Projects can be either major multi-year 

efforts, or one to two-year special 

studies. 

The majority of the testing and 

training activities Navy is proposing for 

the foreseeable future in the PMSR 

Study Area are similar if not nearly 

identical to activities that have been 

occurring in the same locations for 

decades. In the PMSR Study Area, there 

are no Major Exercises, testing and 

training events are, by comparison to 

other Navy areas, less frequent and are 

in general small in scope, so as a result 

the majority of Navy’s research effort 

has been focused elsewhere. For this 

reason, the vast majority of scientific 

fieldwork, research, and monitoring 

efforts have been expended in the 

SOCAL Range Complex and Hawaii, 

where Navy training and testing 

activities have been more concentrated. 

Since 2006, the Navy has been 

submitting exercise reports and 

monitoring reports to NMFS for the 

Navy’s range complexes in the Pacific 

and the Atlantic. These publicly 

available exercise reports, monitoring 

reports, and the associated research 

findings have been integrated into 

adaptive management decisions 

regarding the focus for subsequent 

research and monitoring as determined 

in collaborations between Navy, NMFS, 

Marine Mammal Commission, and other 

marine resource subject matter experts 

using an adaptive management 

approach. For example, see the 2019 

U.S. Navy Annual Marine Species 

Monitoring Report for the Pacific that 

was made available to the public in 

September 2020. 

Adaptive Management 

The proposed regulations governing 

the take of marine mammals incidental 

to Navy training and testing activities in 

the PMSR Study Area contain an 

adaptive management component. Our 

understanding of the effects of Navy 

training and testing activities on marine 

mammals continues to evolve, which 

makes the inclusion of an adaptive 

management component both valuable 

and necessary within the context of 

seven-year regulations. 

The reporting requirements associated 

with this proposed rule are designed to 

provide NMFS with monitoring data 

from the previous year to allow NMFS 

to consider whether any changes to 

existing mitigation and monitoring 

requirements are appropriate. The use of 

adaptive management allows NMFS to 

consider new information from different 

sources to determine (with input from 

the Navy regarding practicability) on an 

annual or biennial basis if mitigation or 

monitoring measures should be 

modified (including additions or 

deletions). Mitigation or monitoring 

measures could be modified if new data 

suggests that such modifications will 

have a reasonable likelihood of more 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37832 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

effectively accomplishing the goals of 

the mitigation and monitoring and if the 

measures are practicable. If the 

modifications to the mitigation, 

monitoring, or reporting measures are 

substantial, NMFS will publish a notice 

of the proposed LOA in the Federal 

Register and solicit public comment. 

The following are some of the 

possible sources of applicable data to be 

considered through the adaptive 

management process: (1) Results from 

monitoring and exercises reports, as 

required by MMPA authorizations; (2) 

results from specific stranding 

investigations; (3) results from general 

marine mammal and sound research; 

and (4) any information which reveals 

that marine mammals may have been 

taken in a manner, extent, or number 

not authorized by these regulations or 

subsequent LOA. The results from 

monitoring reports and other studies 

may be viewed at https://

www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. 

Proposed Reporting 

In order to issue incidental take 

authorization for an activity, section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that 

NMFS must set forth requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of such taking. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. Reports from individual 

monitoring events, results of analyses, 

publications, and periodic progress 

reports for specific monitoring projects 

will be posted to the Navy’s Marine 

Species Monitoring web portal: http://

www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. 

Notification of Injured, Live Stranded or 

Dead Marine Mammals 

The Navy will consult the 

Notification and Reporting Plan, which 

sets out notification, reporting, and 

other requirements when injured, live 

stranded, or dead marine mammals are 

detected. The Notification and 

Reporting Plan is available at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-us-navytesting-and-training-activities-pointmugu-sea-range. 

Annual SNI Monitoring Report 

The Navy would submit an annual 

report to NMFS of the SNI rocket and 

missile launch activities. The draft 

annual monitoring report must be 

submitted to the Director, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, within 

three months after the end of the 

reporting year. NMFS will submit 

comments or questions on the draft 

monitoring report, if any, within three 

months of receipt. The report will be 

considered final after the Navy has 

addressed NMFS’ comments, or three 

months after the submission of the draft 

if NMFS does not provide comments on 

the draft report. The report would 

summarize the launch events conducted 

during the year; assess any direct 

impacts to pinnipeds from launch 

events; assess any cumulative impacts 

on pinnipeds from launch events; and 

summarize pinniped monitoring and 

research activities conducted on SNI 

and any findings related to effects of 

launch noise on pinniped populations. 

Annual PMSR Training and Testing 

Exercise Report 

Each year the Navy will submit a 

detailed report (Annual PMSR Training 

and Testing Activity Report) to NMFS 

within three months after the one-year 

anniversary of the date of issuance of 

the LOA. NMFS will submit comments 

or questions on the report, if any, within 

one month of receipt. The report will be 

considered final after the Navy has 

addressed NMFS’ comments, or one 

month after submission of the draft if 

NMFS does not provide comments on 

the draft report. The annual report will 

contain information on all explosives 

used, total annual number of each type 

of explosive exercises; and total annual 

expended/detonated rounds (missiles, 

bombs etc.) for each explosive bin. The 

annual report will also specifically 

include information on sound sources 

used. The annual report will also 

contain the current year’s explosive use 

data as well as the cumulative sonar and 

explosive use quantity from previous 

years’ reports. Additionally, if there 

were any changes to the explosives 

allowance in the reporting year or 

cumulatively, the report will include a 

discussion of why the change was made 

and include analysis to support how the 

change did or did not affect the analysis 

in the 2021 PMSR FEIS/OEIS and 

MMPA final rule. See the regulatory text 

below for detail on the content of the 

annual report. 

The final annual/close-out report at 

the conclusion of the authorization 

period (year seven) will also serve as the 

comprehensive close-out report, and 

will include both the final year annual 

use compared to annual authorization 

and a cumulative seven-year annual use 

compared to seven-year authorization. 

NMFS must submit comments on the 

draft close-out report, if any, within 

three months of receipt. The report will 

be considered final after the Navy has 

addressed NMFS’ comments, or three 

months after the submission of the draft 

if NMFS does not provide comments. 

Information included in the annual 

reports may be used to inform future 

adaptive management of activities 

within the PMSR Study Area. 

Other Reporting and Coordination 

The Navy will continue to report and 

coordinate with NMFS for the 

following: 

• Annual marine species monitoring 

technical review meetings that also 

include researchers and the Marine 

Mammal Commission. Every two years 

a joint Pacific-Atlantic meeting is held); 

and 

• Annual Adaptive Management 

meetings that also include the Marine 

Mammal Commission (recently 

modified to occur in conjunction with 

the annual monitoring technical review 

meeting). 

Preliminary Analysis and Negligible 

Impact Determination 

General Negligible Impact Analysis 

Introduction 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(i.e., population-level effects) (50 CFR 

216.103). An estimate of the number of 

takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In considering how 

Level A harassment or Level B 

harassment factor into the negligible 

impact analysis, in addition to 

considering the number of estimated 

takes, NMFS considers other factors, 

such as the likely nature of any 

responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the 

context of any responses (e.g., critical 

reproductive time or location, 

migration), as well as effects on habitat, 

and the likely effectiveness of the 

mitigation. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the regulatory status of the 

species, population size and growth rate 

where known). 

In the Estimated Take of Marine 

Mammals section of this proposed rule, 

we identified the subset of potential 

effects that are reasonably expected to 

occur and rise to the level of takes based 

on the methods described. The impact 

that any given take will have on an 

individual, and ultimately the species or 

stock, is dependent on many caseVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 Jul 15, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16JYP2.SGM 16JYP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37833 

specific factors that need to be 

considered in the negligible impact 

analysis (e.g., the context of behavioral 

exposures such as duration or intensity 

of a disturbance, the health of impacted 

animals, the status of a species that 

incurs fitness-level impacts to 

individuals, etc.). For this proposed 

rule, we evaluated the likely impacts of 

the number of harassment takes 

reasonably expected to occur, and 

proposed for authorization, in the 

context of the specific circumstances 

surrounding these predicted takes. Last, 

we collectively evaluated this 

information, as well as other more taxaspecific information and mitigation 

measure effectiveness, in group-specific 

assessments that support our negligible 

impact conclusions for each species and 

stock. 

As explained in the Estimated Take of 

Marine Mammals section, no take by 

serious injury or mortality is proposed 

for authorization or anticipated to occur. 

The Specified Activities reflect 

maximum levels of training and testing 

activities. The Description of the 

Specified Activity section describes 

annual activities. There may be some 

flexibility in the exact number of 

detonations that may vary from year to 

year, but take totals will not exceed the 

seven-year totals indicated in Table 18 

as well as take annual and seven-year 

totals described for missile launch 

activities on SNI in Table 19. We base 

our analysis and negligible impact 

determination on the maximum number 

of takes that are reasonably expected to 

occur and proposed for authorization, 

although, as stated before, the number of 

takes are only a part of the analysis, 

which includes qualitative 

consideration of other contextual factors 

that influence the degree of impact of 

the takes on the affected individuals. To 

avoid repetition, we provide some 

general analysis in this General 

Negligible Impact Analysis section that 

applies to all the species and stocks 

listed in Tables 18 and 19, given that 

some of the anticipated effects of the 

Navy’s training and testing activities on 

marine mammals are expected to be 

relatively similar in nature. Then, in the 

Group and Species-Specific Analyses 

section, we subdivide into discussions 

of Mysticetes, Odontocetes, and 

Pinnipeds as there are broad life history 

traits that support an overarching 

discussion of some factors considered 

within the analysis for those groups 

(e.g., high-level differences in feeding 

strategies). Last, we break our analysis 

into species and stock, or groups of 

species where relevant similarities exist, 

to provide more specific information 

related to the anticipated effects on 

individuals of that species or where 

there is information about the status or 

structure of any species that would lead 

to a differing assessment of the effects 

on the species. Organizing our analysis 

by grouping species that share common 

traits or that will respond similarly to 

effects of the Navy’s activities and then 

providing species-specific information 

allows us to avoid duplication while 

assuring that we have analyzed the 

effects of the specified activities on each 

affected species and stock. 

The Navy’s take request, which, as 

described above, is for harassment only, 

is based on its acoustic model. The 

model calculates sound energy 

propagation from explosives during 

naval activities; the sound or impulse 

received by animat dosimeters 

representing marine mammals 

distributed in the area around the 

modeled activity; and whether the 

sound or impulse energy received by a 

marine mammal exceeds the thresholds 

for effects. Assumptions in the Navy 

model intentionally err on the side of 

overestimation when there are 

unknowns. Naval activities are modeled 

as though they would occur regardless 

of proximity to marine mammals, 

meaning that no mitigation is 

considered and without any avoidance 

of the activity by the animal. NMFS 

provided input to, independently 

reviewed, and concurred with the Navy 

on this process and the Navy’s analysis, 

which is described in detail in Section 

6 of the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA 

application, and which was used to 

quantify harassment takes for this 

proposed rule. 

Generally speaking, the Navy and 

NMFS anticipate more severe effects 

from takes resulting from exposure to 

higher received levels (though this is in 

no way a strictly linear relationship for 

behavioral effects throughout species, 

individuals, or circumstances), and less 

severe effects from takes resulting from 

exposure to lower received levels. 

However, there is also growing evidence 

of the importance of distance in 

predicting marine mammal behavioral 

response to sound—i.e., sounds of a 

similar level emanating from a more 

distant source have been shown to be 

less likely to evoke a response of equal 

magnitude (DeRuiter 2012, Falcone et 

al. 2017). The estimated number of 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment takes does not equate to the 

number of individual animals the Navy 

expects to harass (which is lower), but 

rather to the instances of take (i.e., 

exposures above the Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment threshold) that 

are anticipated to occur annually and 

over the seven-year period. These 

instances may represent either brief 

exposures (seconds) or, in some cases, 

several exposures within a day. Most 

explosives detonating at or near the 

surface, especially those involving the 

larger explosive bins such as a 

MISSILEX, have brief exposures lasting 

only a few milliseconds to minutes for 

the entire event. Explosive events may 

be a single event involving one 

explosion (single exposure) or a series of 

intermittent explosives (multiple 

explosives) occurring over the course of 

a day. Gunnery events, in some cases, 

may have longer durations of exposure 

to intermittent sound. In general, 

gunnery events can last intermittently 

over 1–3 hrs in total; however the actual 

exposure during the event would be of 

a much shorter duration (seconds to 

minutes). 

Behavioral Response 

Behavioral reactions from explosive 

sounds are likely to be similar to 

reactions studied for other impulsive 

sounds such as those produced by air 

guns. Impulsive signals, particularly at 

close range, have a rapid rise time and 

higher instantaneous peak pressure than 

other signal types, making them more 

likely to cause startle responses or 

avoidance responses. Most data has 

come from seismic surveys that occur 

over long durations (e.g., on the order of 

days to weeks), and typically utilize 

large multi-air gun arrays that fire 

repeatedly. While seismic air gun data 

provides the best available science for 

assessing behavioral responses to 

impulsive sounds (i.e., sounds from 

explosives) by marine mammals, it is 

likely that these responses represent a 

worst-case scenario compared to most 

Navy explosive noise sources. There are 

no explosives proposed to detonate 

underwater, only those that detonate at 

or near the surface of the water. For 

explosives detonating at or near the 

surface, an animal is considered 

exposed to a sound if the received 

sound level at the animal’s location is 

above the background ambient noise 

level within a similar frequency band. 

For launches of targets and missiles 

from SNI, years of monitoring have 

demonstrated that sound levels at the 

nearest pinniped haulout site would 

produce short-term, localized changes 

in behavior, including temporarily 

vacating haul-outs. 

As described in the Navy’s 

application, the Navy identified (with 

NMFS’ input) the types of behaviors 

that would be considered a take 

(moderate behavioral responses as 

characterized in Southall et al. (2007) 

(e.g., altered migration paths or dive 

profiles, interrupted nursing, breeding 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37834 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

or feeding, or avoidance) that also 

would be expected to continue for the 

duration of an exposure). The Navy then 

compiled the available data indicating 

the received sound levels and distances 

from the sources when those responses 

have occurred to predict how many 

instances of Level B harassment by 

behavioral disturbance occur in a day. 

Take estimates alone do not provide 

information regarding the potential 

fitness or other biological consequences 

of the reactions on the affected 

individuals. NMFS therefore considers 

the available activity-specific, 

environmental, and species-specific 

information to determine the likely 

nature of the modeled behavioral 

responses and the potential fitness 

consequences for affected individuals. 

In the range of potential behavioral 

effects that might be expected to be part 

of a response that qualifies as an 

instance of Level B harassment by 

behavioral disturbance (which by nature 

of the way it is modeled/counted, 

occurs within one day), the less severe 

end might include exposure to 

comparatively lower levels of a sound, 

at a detectably greater distance from the 

animal, for a few or several minutes. A 

less severe exposure of this nature could 

result in a behavioral response such as 

avoiding an area that an animal would 

otherwise have chosen to move through 

or feed in for some amount of time or 

breaking off one or a few feeding bouts. 

More severe effects could occur when 

the animal gets close enough to the 

source to receive a comparatively higher 

level, or is exposed intermittently to 

different sources throughout a day. Such 

effects might result in an animal having 

a more severe flight response and 

leaving a larger area for a day or more 

or potentially losing feeding 

opportunities for a day. However, such 

severe behavioral effects are expected to 

occur infrequently. 

The majority of Level B harassment 

takes are expected to be in the form of 

milder responses (i.e., lower-level 

exposures that still rise to the level of 

take) of a generally shorter duration. We 

anticipate more severe effects from takes 

when animals are exposed to higher 

received levels or at closer proximity to 

the source. However, depending on the 

context of an exposure (e.g., depth, 

distance, if an animal is engaged in 

important behavior such as feeding), a 

behavioral response can vary across 

species and individuals within a 

species. Specifically, given a range of 

behavioral responses that may be 

classified as Level B harassment, to the 

degree that higher received levels are 

expected to result in more severe 

behavioral responses, only a smaller 

percentage of the anticipated Level B 

harassment from Navy activities would 

be expected to potentially result in more 

severe responses (see the Group and 

Species-Specific Analyses section below 

for more detailed information). To fully 

understand the likely impacts of the 

predicted/authorized take on an 

individual (i.e., what is the likelihood or 

degree of fitness impacts), one must 

look closely at the available contextual 

information, such as the duration of 

likely exposures and the likely severity 

of the exposures (e.g., whether they will 

occur for a longer duration over 

sequential days or the comparative 

sound level that will be received). 

Ellison et al. (2012) and Moore and 

Barlow (2013), among others, emphasize 

the importance of context (e.g., 

behavioral state of the animals, distance 

from the sound source) in evaluating 

behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to acoustic sources. 

Diel Cycle 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing on a diel cycle (24-hour 

cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise 

exposure, when taking place in a 

biologically important context, such as 

disruption of critical life functions, 

displacement, or avoidance of important 

habitat, are more likely to be significant 

if they last more than one diel cycle or 

recur on subsequent days (Southall et 

al., 2007). For example, Henderson et al. 

(2016) found that ongoing smaller scale 

events had little to no impact on 

foraging dives for Blainville’s beaked 

whale, while multi-day training events 

may decrease foraging behavior for 

Blainville’s beaked whale (ManzanoRoth et al., 2016). There are very few 

multi-day training events proposed for 

PMSR. 

Durations of Navy activities utilizing 

explosives vary and are fully described 

in Appendix A (PMSR Scenarios 

Descriptions) of the 2020 PMSR DEIS/ 

OEIS. The PMSR has activity occurring 

daily, but tests range from just a single 

missile launch or multiple launches, or 

may only be a captive carry where no 

munitions are air launched but the test 

is to determine the aircraft’s ability to 

function properly with a missile on 

board, to a single or dual target launch 

from SNI, or a CSSQT where the ship’s 

capability is tested by how it performs 

with a multiple weapons systems 

against a target. Also, while some tests 

are planned well in advance, some 

portions of or the entire test may be 

cancelled due to weather or atmospheric 

conditions, sea state, a particular system 

or support infrastructure dysfunction, or 

many other factors. Most proposed 

explosive detonation events are 

scheduled to occur over a short duration 

(one to a few hours); however, the 

explosive detonation component of the 

activity only lasts for seconds. Although 

explosive detonation events may 

sometimes be conducted in the same 

general areas repeatedly, because of 

their short duration and the fact that 

they are in the open ocean and animals 

can easily move away, it is similarly 

unlikely that animals would be exposed 

for long, continuous amounts of time, or 

demonstrate sustained behavioral 

responses. All of these factors make it 

unlikely that individuals would be 

exposed to the exercise for extended 

periods or on consecutive days. 

Assessing the Number of Individuals 

Taken and the Likelihood of Repeated 

Takes 

As described previously, Navy 

modeling uses the best available science 

to predict the instances of exposure 

above certain acoustic thresholds, 

which are quantified as harassment 

takes. However, these numbers from the 

model do not identify whether and 

when the enumerated instances occur to 

the same individual marine mammal on 

different days, or how any such 

repeated takes may impact those 

individuals. One method that NMFS can 

use to help better understand the overall 

scope of the impacts is to compare the 

total instances of take against the 

abundance of that species (or stock if 

applicable). For example, if there are 

100 estimated harassment takes in a 

population of 100, one can assume 

either that every individual will be 

exposed above acoustic thresholds in no 

more than one day, or that some smaller 

number will be exposed in one day but 

a few individuals will be exposed 

multiple days within a year and a few 

not exposed at all. However, in this 

proposed rule the percentage of takes 

relative to abundance is under five 

percent for all species and in most cases 

less than one percent, meaning that it is 

less likely that individuals of most 

species will be taken multiple times, 

although we note that pinnipeds that 

haul out regularly in areas where 

activities are regularly conducted are 

more likely to be taken on multiple 

days. 

Temporary Threshold Shift 

NMFS and the Navy have estimated 

that some species and stocks of marine 

mammals may sustain some level of 

TTS from explosive detonations. In 

general, TTS can last from a few 

minutes to days, be of varying degree, 

and occur across various frequency 

bandwidths, all of which determine the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37835 

severity of the impacts on the affected 

individual, which can range from minor 

to more severe. Explosives are generally 

referenced as broadband because of the 

various frequencies. Table 31 indicates 

the number of takes by TTS that may be 

incurred by different species from 

exposure to explosives. The TTS 

sustained by an animal is primarily 

classified by three characteristics: 

1. Frequency—Available data (of midfrequency hearing specialists exposed to 

mid- or high-frequency sounds; Southall 

et al., 2007) suggest that most TTS 

occurs in the frequency range of the 

source up to one octave higher than the 

source (with the maximum TTS at 1⁄2

octave above). TTS from explosives 

would be broadband. 

2. Degree of the shift (i.e., by how 

many dB the sensitivity of the hearing 

is reduced)—Generally, both the degree 

of TTS and the duration of TTS will be 

greater if the marine mammal is exposed 

to a higher level of energy (which would 

occur when the peak dB level is higher 

or the duration is longer). The threshold 

for the onset of TTS was discussed 

previously in this proposed rule. An 

animal would have to approach closer 

to the source or remain in the vicinity 

of the sound source appreciably longer 

to increase the received SEL. The sound 

resulting from an explosive detonation 

is considered an impulsive sound and 

shares important qualities (i.e., short 

duration and fast rise time) with other 

impulsive sounds such as those 

produced by air guns. Given the 

anticipated duration and levels of sound 

exposure, we would not expect marine 

mammals to incur more than relatively 

low levels of TTS (i.e., single digits of 

sensitivity loss). 

3. Duration of TTS (recovery time)— 

In the TTS laboratory studies (as 

discussed in the Potential Effects of 

Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat section of 

the proposed rule), some using 

exposures of almost an hour in duration 

or up to 217 SEL, almost all individuals 

recovered within 1 day (or less, often in 

minutes), although in one study 

(Finneran et al., 2007) recovery took 4 

days. For the same reasons discussed in 

the Preliminary Analysis and Negligible 

Impact Determination—Diel Cycle 

section, and because of the short 

distance animals would need to be from 

the sound source, it is unlikely that 

animals would be exposed to the levels 

necessary to induce TTS in subsequent 

time periods such that their recovery is 

impeded. 

The TTS takes would be the result of 

exposure to explosive detonations 

(broad-band). As described above, we 

expect the majority of these takes to be 

in the form of mild (single-digit), shortterm (minutes to hours) TTS. This 

means that for one time a year, for 

several minutes, a taken individual will 

have slightly diminished hearing 

sensitivity (slightly more than natural 

variation, but nowhere near total 

deafness). The expected results of any 

one of these small number of mild TTS 

occurrences could be that (1) it does not 

overlap signals that are pertinent to that 

animal in the given time period, (2) it 

overlaps parts of signals that are 

important to the animal, but not in a 

manner that impairs interpretation, or 

(3) it reduces detectability of an 

important signal to a small degree for a 

short amount of time—in which case the 

animal may be aware and be able to 

compensate (but there may be slight 

energetic cost), or the animal may have 

some reduced opportunities (e.g., to 

detect prey) or reduced capabilities to 

react with maximum effectiveness (e.g., 

to detect a predator or navigate 

optimally). However, given the small 

number of times that any individual 

might incur TTS, the low degree of TTS 

and the short anticipated duration, and 

the low likelihood that one of these 

instances would occur across a time 

period in which the specific TTS 

overlapped the entirety of a critical 

signal, it is unlikely that TTS of the 

nature expected to result from the Navy 

activities would result in behavioral 

changes or other impacts that would 

impact any individual’s (of any hearing 

sensitivity) reproduction or survival. 

Auditory Masking or Communication 

Impairment 

The ultimate potential impacts of 

masking on an individual (if it were to 

occur) are similar to those discussed for 

TTS, but an important difference is that 

masking only occurs during the time of 

the signal, versus TTS, which continues 

beyond the duration of the signal. 

Fundamentally, masking is referred to 

as a chronic effect because one of the 

key potential harmful components of 

masking is its duration—the fact that an 

animal would have reduced ability to 

hear or interpret critical cues becomes 

much more likely to cause a problem 

the longer it is occurring. Also inherent 

in the concept of masking is the fact that 

the potential for the effect is only 

present during the times that the animal 

and the source are in close enough 

proximity for the effect to occur (and 

further, this time period would need to 

coincide with a time that the animal 

was utilizing sounds at the masked 

frequency). As our analysis has 

indicated, because of the sound sources 

primarily involved in this rule, we do 

not expect the exposures with the 

potential for masking to be of a long 

duration. Masking is fundamentally 

more of a concern at lower frequencies, 

because low frequency signals propagate 

significantly further than higher 

frequencies and because they are more 

likely to overlap both the narrower lowfrequency calls of mysticetes, as well as 

many non-communication cues, such as 

sounds from fish and invertebrate prey 

and geologic sounds that inform 

navigation. Masking is also more of a 

concern from continuous sources 

(versus intermittent) where there is no 

quiet time between a sound source 

within which auditory signals can be 

detected and interpreted. Explosions 

introduce low-frequency, broadband 

sounds into the environment, which 

could momentarily mask hearing 

thresholds in animals that are nearby, 

although sounds from explosions last 

for only a few seconds at most. Masking 

due to these short duration detonations 

would not be significant. Activities that 

have multiple, repeated detonations, 

such as some naval gunfire activities, 

could result in masking for mysticetes 

near the target impact area over the 

duration of the event. Effects of masking 

are only present when the sound from 

the explosion is present, and the effect 

is over the moment the sound is no 

longer detectable. Therefore, short-term 

exposure to the predominantly 

intermittent explosions are not expected 

to result in a meaningful amount of 

masking. For the reasons described here, 

any limited masking that could 

potentially occur from explosives would 

be minor and short-term and 

intermittent. Long-term consequences 

from physiological stress due to the 

sound of explosives would not be 

expected. In conclusion, masking is 

more likely to occur in the presence of 

broadband, relatively continuous noise 

sources such as from vessels; however, 

the duration of temporal and spatial 

overlap with any individual animal and 

the spatially separated sources that the 

Navy uses would not be expected to 

result in more than short-term, low 

impact masking that would not affect 

reproduction or survival of individuals. 

Auditory Injury (Permanent Threshold 

Shift) 

Table 31 indicates the number of 

individuals of each species for which 

Level A harassment in the form of PTS 

resulting from exposure to or explosives 

is estimated to occur. The number of 

individuals to potentially incur PTS 

annually (from explosives) for each 

species ranges from 0 to 49 (49 is for 

Dall’s porpoise), but is more typically 0 

or 1. As described previously, no 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37836 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

species are expected to incur nonauditory injury from explosives. 

As discussed previously, the Navy 

utilizes aerial monitoring in addition to 

Lookouts on vessels to detect marine 

mammals for mitigation 

implementation. These Level A 

harassment take numbers represent the 

maximum number of instances in which 

marine mammals would be reasonably 

expected to incur PTS, and we have 

analyzed them accordingly. In relation 

to TTS, the likely consequences to the 

health of an individual that incurs PTS 

can range from mild to more serious 

depending upon the degree of PTS and 

the frequency band it is in. Any PTS 

accrued as a result of exposure to Navy 

activities would be expected to be of a 

small amount. Permanent loss of some 

degree of hearing is a normal occurrence 

for older animals, and many animals are 

able to compensate for the shift, both in 

old age or at younger ages as the result 

of stressor exposure (Green et al., 1987; 

Houser et al., 2008; Ketten 2012; Mann 

et al., 2010; McGfown et al., 2020). 

While a small loss of hearing sensitivity 

may include some degree of energetic 

costs for compensating or may mean 

some small loss of opportunities or 

detection capabilities, at the expected 

scale it would be unlikely to impact 

behaviors, opportunities, or detection 

capabilities to a degree that would 

interfere with reproductive success or 

survival of any individuals. 

Physiological Stress Response 

Some of the lower level physiological 

stress responses (e.g., orientation or 

startle response, change in respiration, 

change in heart rate) discussed in the 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and their Habitat 

would likely co-occur with the 

predicted harassments, although these 

responses are more difficult to detect 

and fewer data exist relating these 

responses to specific received levels of 

sound. However, we would not expect 

the Navy’s generally short-term and 

intermittent activities to create 

conditions of long-term, continuous 

noise leading to long-term physiological 

stress responses in marine mammals 

that could affect reproduction or 

survival. 

Group and Species-Specific Analyses 

In this section, we build on the 

general analysis that applies to all 

marine mammals in the PMSR Study 

Area from the previous section, and 

include first information and analysis 

that applies to mysticetes or, separately, 

odontocetes, and pinnipeds and then 

within those three sections, more 

specific information that applies to 

smaller groups, where applicable, and 

the affected species and stocks. The 

specific take numbers proposed for 

authorization are discussed in Tables 31 

and 32, and here we provide some 

additional context and discussion 

regarding how we consider the 

proposed take numbers in those 

analyses. The maximum amount and 

type of incidental take of marine 

mammals reasonably likely to occur 

from explosive detonations and target 

and missile launch activities and 

therefore authorized during the sevenyear training and testing period are 

shown in Tables 31 and 32 below. The 

vast majority of predicted exposures are 

expected to be Level B harassment (TTS 

and behavioral disturbance) from 

explosive sources during training and 

testing activities and missile launch 

activities on SNI. 

TABLE 31— ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE PMSR 

STUDY AREA (EXCLUDING SNI) AND THE NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF

STOCK ABUNDANCE

Common name Stock/DPS 

Proposed annual take by Level A and Level B 

harassment 

Total take 

Abundance 

(2020 draft 

SARS) 

Percent taken 

by abundance Behavioral 

response TTS PTS 

Blue whale * .......... Eastern North Pacific.7 4 0 11 1,496 0.74 

Fin whale * ............. California, Oregon, 

and Washington.

14 7 1 22 9,029 0.24 

Gray whale ............ Eastern North Pacific.9 5 0 14 26,960 0.05 

Humpback whale * California, Oregon, 

and Washington/ 

Mexico DPS.

7 4 0 11 2,900 0.38 

California, Oregon, 

and Washington/ 

Central America 

DPS.

1 0 0 1 2,900 0.03 

Minke whale .......... California, Oregon, 

and Washington.

2 1 0 3 636 0.47 

Bottlenose dolphin California, Oregon, 

and Washington 

Offshore.

5 5 1 11 1924 0.57 

Dall’s porpoise ...... California, Oregon, 

and Washington.

261 406 49 716 25,750 2.78 

Dwarf sperm whale California, Oregon, 

and Washington.

20 31 6 57 4,111 1.39 

Long-beaked common dolphin.California .............. 66 44 9 119 101,305 0.12 

Northern right 

whale dolphin.

California, Oregon, 

and Washington.

3 2 1 6 26,556 0.02 

Pacific white-sided 

dolphin.

California, Oregon, 

and Washington.

11 8 2 21 26,814 0.08 

Pygmy sperm 

whale.

California, Oregon, 

and Washington.

20 31 6 57 4,111 1.39 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37837 

TABLE 31— ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE PMSR 

STUDY AREA (EXCLUDING SNI) AND THE NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF

STOCK ABUNDANCE—Continued 

Common name Stock/DPS 

Proposed annual take by Level A and Level B 

harassment 

Total take 

Abundance 

(2020 draft 

SARS) 

Percent taken 

by abundance Behavioral 

response TTS PTS 

Risso’s dolphins .... California, Oregon, 

and Washington.

6 3 1 10 6,336 0.16 

Short-beaked common dolphin.California, Oregon, 

and Washington.

90 65 15 170 969,861 0.02 

Sperm whale * ....... California, Oregon, 

and Washington.

1 1 0 2 1,997 0.10 

Striped dolphin ...... California, Oregon, 

and Washington.

1 1 0 2 29,211 0.01 

Harbor seal ........... California .............. 202 120 14 336 30,968 1.08 

Northern elephant 

seal.

California .............. 37 63 22 122 179,000 0.07 

California sea lion U.S. Stock ............ 8 12 2 22 257,606 0.01 

Guadalupe fur 

seal *.

Mexico to California.1 1 0 2 34,187 0.01 

Note: Percentages taken by abundance may be less for some stocks as the abundance would be less in the PMSR Study Area depending on 

the range of a particular stock. 

* ESA-listed species in PMSR Study Area. 

TABLE 32—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT FOR PINNIPED ON SNI AND THE NUMBER

INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Species Stock 

Proposed 

annual take 

by Level B 

harassment 

Abundance 

(2020 draft 

SARS) 

Percent taken 

by abundance 

Proposed 7- 

year total take 

by Level B 

harassment 

California sea lion ................................................................ U.S. 11,000 257,606 4.27 77,000 

Harbor seal .......................................................................... California 480 30,968 1.55 3,360 

Northern elephant seal ........................................................ California 40 179,000 0.02 280 

In the discussions below, the 

estimated takes by Level B harassment 

represent instances of take, not the 

number of individuals taken (the much 

lower and less frequent takes by Level 

A harassment are far more likely to be 

associated with separate individuals). 

The total take numbers (by any method 

of taking) for species are compared to 

their associated abundance estimates to 

evaluate the magnitude of impacts 

across the species and to individuals. 

Abundance percentage comparisons are 

less than three percent for all species 

and stocks and nearly all are one 

percent or less and zero in many cases 

for explosives and less than five percent 

for all species on SNI from target and 

missile launch activities. This means 

that: (1) Not all of the individuals will 

be taken, and many will not be taken at 

all; (2) barring specific circumstances 

suggesting repeated takes of individuals 

(such as in circumstances where all 

activities resulting in take are focused in 

one area and time where the same 

individual marine mammals are known 

to congregate, such as pinnipeds on 

SNI), the average or expected number of 

days taken for those individuals taken is 

one per year; and (3) we would not 

expect any individuals to be taken more 

than a few times in a year, or for those 

days to be sequential. 

To assist in understanding what this 

analysis means, we clarify a few issues 

related to estimated takes and the 

analysis here. An individual that incurs 

PTS or TTS may sometimes, for 

example, also be subject to direct 

behavioral disturbance at the same time. 

As described above in this section, the 

degree of PTS, and the degree and 

duration of TTS, expected to be 

incurred from the Navy’s activities are 

not expected to impact marine 

mammals such that their reproduction 

or survival could be affected. Similarly, 

data do not suggest that a single 

instance in which an animal incurs PTS 

or TTS and also has an additional direct 

behavioral response would result in 

impacts to reproduction or survival. 

Accordingly, in analyzing the numbers 

of takes and the likelihood of repeated 

and sequential takes, we consider all the 

types of take, so that individuals 

potentially experiencing both threshold 

shift and direct behavioral responses are 

appropriately considered. The number 

of Level A harassment takes by PTS are 

so low (and zero in most cases) 

compared to abundance numbers that it 

is considered highly unlikely that any 

individual would be taken at those 

levels more than once. 

On the less severe end, exposure to 

comparatively lower levels of sound at 

a detectably greater distance from the 

animal, for a few or several minutes, 

could result in a behavioral response 

such as avoiding an area that an animal 

would otherwise have moved through or 

fed in, or breaking off one or a few 

feeding bouts. More severe behavioral 

effects could occur when an animal gets 

close enough to the source to receive a 

comparatively higher level of sound, is 

exposed continuously to one source for 

a longer time, or is exposed 

intermittently to different sources 

throughout a day. Such effects might 

result in an animal having a more severe 

flight response and leaving a larger area 

for a day or more, or potentially losing 

feeding opportunities for a day. 

However, such severe behavioral effects 

are not expected to occur. 

Occasional, milder behavioral 

reactions are unlikely to cause long-term 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37838 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

consequences for individual animals or 

populations, and even if some smaller 

subset of the takes are in the form of a 

longer (several hours or a day) and more 

severe responses, if they are not 

expected to be repeated over sequential 

days, impacts to individual fitness are 

not anticipated. Nearly all studies and 

experts agree that infrequent exposures 

of a single day or less are unlikely to 

impact an individual’s overall energy 

budget (Farmer et al., 2018; Harris et al., 

2017; King et al., 2015; NAS 2017; New 

et al., 2014; Southall et al., 2007; 

Villegas-Amtmann et al., 2015). 

The analyses below in some cases 

address species and stocks collectively 

if they occupy the same functional 

hearing group (i.e., low, mid, and highfrequency cetaceans and pinnipeds), 

share similar life history strategies, and/ 

or are known to behaviorally respond 

similarly to stressors. Because some of 

these groups or species share 

characteristics that inform the impact 

analysis similarly, it would be 

duplicative to repeat the same analysis 

for each species. In addition, similar 

species typically have the same hearing 

capabilities and behaviorally respond in 

the same manner. 

Thus, our analysis below considers 

the effects of the Navy’s activities on 

each affected species even where 

discussion is organized by functional 

hearing group and/or information is 

evaluated at the group level. Where 

there are meaningful differences 

between species that would further 

differentiate the analysis, they are either 

described within the section or the 

discussion for those species is included 

as a separate subsection. Specifically, 

below we first give broad descriptions of 

the mysticete, odontocete, and pinniped 

groups and then differentiate into 

further groups and species as 

appropriate. 

Mysticetes 

This section builds on the broader 

discussion above and brings together the 

discussion of the different types and 

amounts of take that different species 

are likely to incur, the applicable 

mitigation, and the status of the species 

to support the negligible impact 

determinations for each species. We 

have described (above in the General 

Negligible Impact Analysis section) the 

unlikelihood of any masking having 

effects that would impact the 

reproduction or survival of any of the 

individual marine mammals affected by 

the Navy’s activities. We also described 

in the Potential Effects of Specified 

Activities on Marine Mammals and their 

Habitat section of the proposed rule the 

unlikelihood of any habitat impacts 

having effects that would impact the 

reproduction or survival of any of the 

individual marine mammals affected by 

the Navy’s activities. There is no 

predicted non-auditory tissue damage 

from explosives for any species, and 

only one take by PTS of any mysticete 

(fin whale) annually. Much of the 

discussion below focuses on the 

behavioral effects and the mitigation 

measures that reduce the probability or 

severity of effects. Because there are 

species-specific considerations, at the 

end of the section we break out our 

findings on a species-specific basis. 

In Table 31 above, we indicate for 

each species the total annual numbers of 

take by Level A and Level B harassment 

for mysticetes, and a number indicating 

the instances of total take as a 

percentage of abundance in the PMSR 

Study Area. Note also that for 

mysticetes, the abundance within the 

PMSR Study Area represents only a 

portion of the species or stock 

abundance. 

No Bryde’s whales, gray whales 

(Western North Pacific stock), or sei 

whales would be taken by Level A 

harassment or Level B harassment and 

therefore are not discussed further. For 

other mysticetes, exposure to explosives 

will result in small numbers of take: 1– 

14 Takes by Level B harassment by 

behavioral disturbance per species, and 

4–7 by TTS per species. One take by 

PTS will result for fin whales and 0 for 

all other mysticetes. Based on this 

information, the majority of the Level B 

harassment by behavioral disturbance is 

expected to be of low severity and of 

shorter duration. No non-auditory tissue 

damage from training and testing 

activities is anticipated or authorized for 

any species. 

Research and observations show that 

if mysticetes are exposed to impulsive 

sounds such as those from explosives, 

they may react in a variety of ways, 

which may include alerting, startling, 

breaking off feeding dives and surfacing, 

diving or swimming away, changing 

vocalization, or showing no response at 

all (DOD, 2017; Nowacek, 2007; 

Richardson, 1995; Southall et al., 2007). 

Overall and in consideration of the 

context for an exposure, mysticetes have 

been observed to be more reactive to 

acoustic disturbance when a noise 

source is located directly in their path 

or the source is nearby (somewhat 

independent of the sound level) 

(Dunlop et al., 2016; Dunlop et al., 2018; 

Ellison et al., 2011; Friedlaender et al., 

2016; Henderson et al., 2019; Malme et 

al., 1985; Richardson et al., 1995; 

Southall et al., 2007a). Mysticetes have 

been observed to be more reactive to 

acoustic disturbance when a noise 

source is located directly on their 

migration route. Mysticetes disturbed 

while migrating could pause their 

migration or route around the 

disturbance, while males en route to 

breeding grounds have been shown to 

be less responsive to disturbances. 

Although some may pause temporarily, 

they will resume migration shortly after 

the exposure ends. Animals disturbed 

while engaged in other activities such as 

feeding or reproductive behaviors may 

be more likely to ignore or tolerate the 

disturbance and continue their natural 

behavior patterns. Because noise from 

most activities using explosives is short 

term and intermittent, and because 

detonations usually occur within a 

small area, behavioral reactions from 

mysticetes, if they occur at all, are likely 

to be short term and of little to no 

significance. 

Noise from explosions is broadband 

with most energy below a few hundred 

Hz; therefore, any reduction in hearing 

sensitivity from exposure to explosive 

sounds is likely to be broadband with 

effects predominantly at lower 

frequencies. Mysticetes that do 

experience threshold shift (i.e., TTS or 

the one instance of PTS for fin whale) 

from exposure to explosives may have 

reduced ability to detect biologically 

important sounds (e.g., social 

vocalizations). For example, during the 

short period that a mysticete 

experiences TTS, social calls from 

conspecifics could be more difficult to 

detect or interpret, the ability to detect 

predators may be reduced, and the 

ability to detect and avoid sounds from 

approaching vessels or other stressors 

might be reduced. Any TTS that would 

occur would be of short duration. 

While NMFS can make a negligible 

impact determination on Navy’s 

estimated take numbers, the 

implementation of mitigation and the 

sightability of mysticetes (especially 

given their large size) reduces the 

potential for, and severity of, any 

threshold shift for mysticetes. When we 

look in ocean areas where the Navy has 

been intensively training and testing 

with explosive and other active acoustic 

sources for decades, there are no data 

suggesting any long-term consequences 

to reproduction or survival rates of 

mysticetes from explosives and other 

active acoustic sources. All the 

mysticete species discussed in this 

section will benefit from the mitigation 

measures described earlier in the 

Proposed Mitigation Measures section. 

Below we compile and summarize the 

information that supports our 

determination that the Navy’s activities 

will not adversely affect any species 

through effects on annual rates of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37839 

recruitment or survival for any of the 

affected mysticete species. 

Humpback whale—As noted in the 

Description of Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat in the Area of the 

Specified Activities section, humpback 

whales in the PMSR Study Area are part 

of the ESA-threatened Mexico DPS and 

ESA-endangered Central America DPS 

of the CA/OR/WA stock with an 

increasing population trend. ESA 

Critical Habitat has been proposed in 

the PMSR Study Area. There are two 

biologically important areas for 

humpback whale feeding that overlap 

with a portion of the PMSR Study 

Area—the Morro Bay to Point Sal 

Feeding Area (designated from April to 

November) and the Santa Barbara 

Channel–San Miguel Feeding Area 

(designated from March to September) 

(Calambokidis et al., 2015). Navy testing 

and training activities that use 

explosives could occur year round 

within the PMSR Study Area, although 

they generally would not occur in these 

relatively nearshore feeding areas, 

because both areas are close to the 

northern Channel Islands NMS, oil 

production platforms, and major vessel 

routes leading to and from the ports of 

Los Angeles and Long Beach. Further, 

even if some small number of humpback 

whale takes occurred in these BIAs and 

were to disrupt feeding behaviors, the 

short-term nature of the anticipated 

takes from these activities, combined 

with the likelihood that they would not 

occur on more than one day for any 

individual within a year, means that 

they are not expected to impact the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals. 

NMFS proposes 12 takes by Level B 

harassment would occur (see Table 31): 

7 takes by behavioral disturbance and 4 

takes by TTS for Mexico DPS humpback 

whales and 1 take by behavioral 

disturbance and 0 takes by TTS for 

Central America DPS humpback whales 

(Table 31). Regarding the magnitude of 

takes by Level B harassment (TTS and 

behavioral disruption), the number of 

estimated total instances of take 

compared to the abundance is less than 

1 percent (Table 31). Regarding the 

severity of those individual takes by 

Level B harassment by behavioral 

disturbance, we have explained that the 

duration of any exposure is expected to 

be between seconds and minutes (i.e., 

short duration) (i.e., of a low level and 

unlikely to evoke a severe response). 

Regarding the severity of takes by TTS, 

they are expected to be low-level, of 

short duration not at a level that will 

impact reproduction or survival. 

Altogether, the CA/OR/WA stock 

includes the ESA-listed Mexico DPS 

(threatened) and Central America 

(endangered) DPS of humpback whales 

and has an increasing population trend. 

There is proposed critical habitat for 

humpback whales in the PMSR Study 

Area. Our analysis suggests only a very 

small portion of the stock will be taken 

and disturbed at a low-level with those 

individuals disturbed on likely one day 

within a year. The proposed takes are 

not expected to result in impacts on the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals, let alone have impacts on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

No Level A harassment, serious injury, 

or mortality is anticipated or proposed 

for authorization. This low magnitude 

and severity of harassment effects is not 

expected to result in impacts on the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals, let alone have impacts on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Therefore, the total take will not 

adversely affect this species through 

impacts on annual rates of recruitment 

or survival. For these reasons, we have 

preliminarily determined, in 

consideration of all of the effects of the 

Navy’s activities combined, that the 

proposed take will have a negligible 

impact on humpback whales. 

Blue whale—Blue whales are listed as 

endangered under the ESA throughout 

their range. The Eastern North Pacific 

stock occurs in the PMSR Study Area 

with a stable population trend (NMFS 

2019; Calambokidis and Barlow, 2020). 

There is no ESA-designated critical 

habitat, but there are three biologically 

important areas (BIAs) for feeding 

identified for blue whales in the PMSR 

Study Area. The feeding areas overlap 

(one wholly and two partially) with the 

PMSR Study Area (June through 

October). Navy testing and training 

activities that use explosives could 

occur year round within the PMSR 

Study Area. However, activities using 

explosives generally would not take 

place in the Point Conception/Arguello 

to Point Sal Feeding Area or the Santa 

Barbara Channel and San Miguel 

Feeding Area, because both areas are 

close to the northern Channel Islands 

NMS, oil production platforms, and 

major vessel routes leading to and from 

the ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach. The SNI feeding area overlaps a 

part of the PMSR Study Area that has 

been in high use for Navy testing and 

training activities for decades. Over the 

years, there has been very little change 

in Navy testing and training off SNI, and 

the waters within Warning Area 289, 

which overlap with the SNI Feeding 

Area, are essential for testing and 

training given their proximity to SNI. 

The area is used during activities 

requiring an aerial target impact area, 

missile launches from SNI, aerial and 

ship-based gunnery events, and sea 

surface missile launches. Even if some 

small number of blue whale takes 

occurred in these BIAs and were to 

disrupt feeding behaviors, the shortterm nature of the anticipated takes 

from these activities, combined with the 

likelihood that they would not occur on 

more than one day for any individual 

within a year, means that they are not 

expected to impact the reproduction or 

survival of any individuals. 

NMFS proposes to authorize 11 takes 

by Level B harassment, 7 takes by 

behavioral disturbance and 4 takes by 

TTS for blue whales (Table 31). 

Regarding the magnitude of takes by 

Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral 

disruption), the number of estimated 

total instances of take compared to the 

abundance is less than 1 percent (Table 

31). Regarding the severity of those 

individual takes by Level B harassment 

by behavioral disturbance, we have 

explained that the duration of any 

exposure is expected to be between 

seconds and minutes (i.e., short 

duration) (i.e., of a low- level). 

Regarding the severity of takes by TTS, 

they are expected to be low-level, of 

short duration not at a level that will 

impact reproduction or survival. 

Altogether, blue whales are listed as 

endangered, though the Eastern North 

Pacific stock is stable, and has a very 

large range. Our analysis suggests that a 

very small portion of the stock will be 

taken and disturbed at a low-level, with 

those individuals disturbed on likely 

one day within a year. No Level A 

harassment, serious injury, or mortality 

is anticipated or proposed for 

authorization. This low magnitude and 

severity of harassment effects is not 

expected to result in impacts on the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals, let alone have impacts on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Therefore, the total take will not 

adversely affect this species through 

impacts on annual rates of recruitment 

or survival. For these reasons, we have 

preliminarily determined, in 

consideration of all of the effects of the 

Navy’s activities combined, that the 

proposed take will have a negligible 

impact on blue whales. 

Fin whale—Fin whales are listed as 

endangered under the ESA throughout 

their range, with no ESA designated 

critical habitat or known biologically 

important areas identified for this 

species in the PMSR Study Area. The 

population trend for the CA/OR/WA 

stock, found in the PMSR Study Area, 

is increasing (NMFS 2019). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37840 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

NMFS proposes to authorize 22 takes 

by Level B harassment, 14 takes by 

behavioral disturbance, 7 takes by TTS, 

and 1 take by PTS for fin whales (Table 

31). Regarding the magnitude of takes by 

Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral 

disruption), the number of estimated 

total instances of take compared to the 

abundance is less than 1 percent (Table 

31). Regarding the severity of those 

individual takes by Level B harassment 

by behavioral disturbance, we have 

explained that the duration of any 

exposure is expected to be between 

seconds and minutes (i.e., short) (i.e., of 

a low level). Regarding the severity of 

takes by TTS, they are expected to be 

low-level, of short duration not at a 

level that will impact reproduction or 

survival. 

Altogether, fin whales are listed as 

endangered, with no designated critical 

habitat or biologically important areas 

in the PMSR Study Area, and the CA/ 

OR/WA stock is increasing. Our analysis 

suggests that a very small portion of the 

stock will be taken and disturbed at a 

low level, with those individuals 

disturbed on likely one day within a 

year. No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or proposed for 

authorization. This low magnitude and 

severity of harassment effects is not 

expected to result in impacts on the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals, let alone have impacts on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Therefore, the total take will not 

adversely affect this species through 

impacts on annual rates of recruitment 

or survival. For these reasons, we have 

preliminarily determined, in 

consideration of all of the effects of the 

Navy’s activities combined, that the 

proposed take will have a negligible 

impact on fin whales. 

Gray whale (Eastern North Pacific 

stock)—The Gray whale (Eastern North 

Pacific stock) is not listed as endangered 

or threatened under the ESA and has an 

increasing population trend. There is an 

active UME for gray whales off the West 

Coast. The Eastern North Pacific 

population of gray whales that migrate 

along the West Coast has declined about 

24 percent since 2016. It now stands at 

an estimated 20,580 whales (Stellar and 

Weller 2021). That is similar to previous 

fluctuations in the Eastern North Pacific 

population that has since recovered 

from the days of whaling. The decline 

coincides with the UME declared in 

2019 and resembles a similar 23 percent 

decline documented after a UME 20 

years earlier, in 1999–2000. The gray 

whale population rebounded following 

that previous UME to greater numbers 

than before. The continuing change in 

gray whale numbers suggests that largescale fluctuations of this nature are not 

rare. The observed declines in 

abundance appear to represent shortterm events that have not resulted in 

any detectable longer-term impacts on 

the population. We do not anticipate 

any mortality or impacts on 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals, and given the low 

magnitude and severity of effects from 

Level B harassment only, even with the 

UME, they will not result in impacts on 

individual reproduction or survival, 

much less annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. Therefore, population-level 

effects to gray whales from the Navy’s 

activities despite the UME are not 

anticipated. 

Four designated biologically 

important areas for migration for gray 

whales (Calambokidis et al., 2015) 

overlap with the PMSR Study Area and 

are active migration areas from October 

through July, although each individual 

area has its own specific date range 

depending on what portion of the 

northbound or southbound migration it 

is meant to cover. Gray whales would 

cross the PMSR Study Area twice a year 

during their annual southbound and 

northbound migrations. Navy testing 

and training activities that use 

explosives could occur year round 

within the PMSR Study Area, but 

generally they would occur farther 

offshore than the shallow-water, 

nearshore habitat generally preferred by 

gray whales during their migration. In 

an early study investigating the behavior 

of migrating gray whales exposed to an 

impulsive source in their migration 

path, a startle response was observed in 

42 percent of the cases, but the change 

in behavior, when it occurred, did not 

persist (Malme et al., 1984; Malme et al., 

1988; Richardson, 1995). If a gray whale 

were to react to sound from an 

explosion, it may pause its migration 

until the noise ceases or moves, or it 

may choose an alternate route around 

the location of the sound source if the 

source was directly in the whale’s 

migratory path. Even if some small 

number of gray whale takes occurred in 

these BIAs in the form of disrupted 

feeding behaviors or traveling for 

migration, the short-term nature of the 

anticipated takes from these activities, 

combined with the likelihood that they 

would not occur on more than one day 

for any individual within a year, mean 

that they are not expected to impact the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals. 

NMFS proposes to authorize 14 takes 

by Level B harassment, 9 takes by 

behavioral disturbance and 5 takes by 

TTS for gray whales (Table 31). 

Regarding the magnitude of takes by 

Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral 

disruption), the number of estimated 

total instances of take compared to the 

abundance is less than 1 percent (Table 

31). Regarding the severity of those 

individual takes by Level B harassment 

by behavioral disturbance, we have 

explained that the duration of any 

exposure is expected to be between 

minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) 

(i.e., of a moderate or lower level, less 

likely to evoke a severe response). 

Regarding the severity of takes by TTS, 

they are expected to be low-level, of 

short duration not at a level that will 

impact reproduction or survival. 

Altogether, gray whales (Eastern 

North Pacific stock) are not listed under 

the ESA and the population is 

increasing. Our analysis suggests that a 

very small portion of the stock will be 

taken and disturbed at a low level, with 

those individuals disturbed on likely 

one day within a year. No Level A 

harassment, serious injury, or mortality 

is anticipated or proposed for 

authorization. This low magnitude and 

severity of harassment effects is not 

expected to result in impacts on the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals, either alone or in 

combination with the effects of the 

UME, let alone have impacts on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival. 

Therefore, the total take will not 

adversely affect this species through 

impacts on annual rates of recruitment 

or survival. For these reasons, we have 

preliminarily determined, in 

consideration of all of the effects of the 

Navy’s activities combined, that the 

proposed take will have a negligible 

impact on gray whales. 

Minke whale—Minke whale is not 

listed as endangered or threatened 

under the ESA and there are no known 

biologically important areas identified 

for these species in the PMSR Study 

Area. The CA/OR/WA stock occurs in 

the PMSR Study Area with no known 

population trend. 

NMFS proposes to authorize 3 takes 

by Level B harassment, 2 takes by 

behavioral disturbance and 1 take by 

TTS for minke whales (Table 31). 

Regarding the magnitude of takes by 

Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral 

disruption), the number of estimated 

total instances of take compared to the 

abundance is less than 1 percent (Table 

31). Regarding the severity of those 

individual takes by Level B harassment 

by behavioral disturbance, we have 

explained that the duration of any 

exposure is expected to be between 

minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) 

(i.e., of a moderate or lower level, less 

likely to evoke a severe response). 

Regarding the severity of takes by TTS, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37841 

they are expected to be low-level, of 

short duration not at a level that will 

impact reproduction or survival. 

Altogether, minke whales are not 

listed under the ESA and with no 

known population trend. Our analysis 

suggests that a very small portion of the 

stock will be taken and disturbed at a 

low level, with those individuals 

disturbed likely one day within a year. 

No Level A harassment, serious injury, 

or mortality is anticipated or proposed 

for authorization. This low magnitude 

and severity of harassment effects is not 

expected to result in impacts on the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals, let alone have impacts on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Therefore, the total take will not 

adversely affect this species through 

impacts on annual rates of recruitment 

or survival. For these reasons, we have 

preliminarily determined, in 

consideration of all of the effects of the 

Navy’s activities combined, that the 

proposed take will have a negligible 

impact on minke whales. 

Odontocetes 

This section builds on the broader 

discussion above and brings together the 

discussion of the different types and 

amounts of take that different species 

are likely to incur, the applicable 

mitigation for each species, and the 

status of the species to support the 

negligible impact determinations for 

each species. We have described (above 

in the General Negligible Impact 

Analysis section) the unlikelihood of 

any masking having effects that would 

impact the reproduction or survival of 

any of the individual marine mammals 

affected by the Navy’s activities. We 

also described in the Potential Effects of 

Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat section of 

this proposed rule the unlikelihood of 

any habitat impacts having effects that 

would impact the reproduction or 

survival of any of the individual marine 

mammals affected by the Navy’s 

activities. There is no predicted PTS 

from explosives for most odontocetes, 

with the exception of a few species, 

which is discussed below. There is no 

predicted non-auditory tissue damage 

from explosives for any species. Much 

of the discussion below focuses on the 

behavioral effects and the mitigation 

measures that reduce the probability or 

severity of effects. Here, we include 

information that applies to all of the 

odontocete species, which are then 

further divided and discussed in more 

detail in the following subsections: 

Kogia whales; sperm whales; beaked 

whales; porpoise, and dolphins and 

small whales. These subsections include 

more specific information about the 

groups, as well as conclusions for each 

species represented. 

In Table 31 above, we indicate for 

each species the total annual numbers of 

take by Level A and Level B harassment 

for odontocetes, and a number 

indicating the instances of total take as 

a percentage of abundance in the PMSR 

Study Area. Note also that, for all 

odontocetes where estimated take is 

requested, their abundance within the 

PMSR Study Area represents only a 

portion of their respective species 

population. 

No Baird’s beaked whale, Cuvier’s 

beaked whale, Mesoplodont spp. harbor 

porpoise, bottlenose dolphin (California 

coastal stock), killer whale, or shortfinned pilot whale will be taken by 

Level A harassment or Level B 

harassment and therefore are not 

discussed further. 

Odontocete echolocation occurs 

predominantly at frequencies 

significantly higher than 20 kHz, though 

there may be some small overlap at the 

lower part of their echolocating range 

for some species, which means that 

there is little likelihood that threshold 

shift, either temporary or permanent 

would interfere with feeding behaviors. 

Many of the other critical sounds that 

serve as cues for navigation and prey 

(e.g., waves, fish, invertebrates) occur 

below a few kHz and the threshold shift 

that might be incurred by individuals 

exposed to explosives would likely be 

lower frequency (5 kHz or less) and 

spanning a wider frequency range, 

which could slightly lower an 

individual’s sensitivity to navigational 

or prey cues, or a small portion of 

communication calls, for several 

minutes to hours (if temporary) or 

permanently. There is no reason to 

think that any of the individual 

odontocetes taken by TTS would incur 

these types of takes over more than one 

day, and therefore they are unlikely to 

result in impacts on reproduction or 

survival. The number of PTS takes from 

these activities are very low (0 annually 

for most, 1–15 for a few species, and 49 

for Dall’s porpoise), and as discussed 

previously because of the low degree of 

PTS (i.e., low amount of hearing 

sensitivity loss), it is unlikely to affect 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals. 

The range of potential behavioral 

effects of sound exposure on marine 

mammals generally, and odontocetes 

specifically, has been discussed in 

detail previously. There are behavioral 

patterns that differentiate the likely 

impacts on odontocetes as compared to 

mysticetes. First, odontocetes 

echolocate to find prey, which means 

that they actively send out sounds to 

detect their prey. While there are many 

strategies for hunting, one common 

pattern, especially for deeper diving 

species, is many repeated deep dives 

within a bout, and multiple bouts 

within a day, to find and catch prey. As 

discussed above, studies demonstrate 

that odontocetes may cease their 

foraging dives in response to sound 

exposure. If enough foraging 

interruptions occur over multiple 

sequential days, and the individual 

either does not take in the necessary 

food, or must exert significant effort to 

find necessary food elsewhere, energy 

budget deficits can occur that could 

potentially result in impacts to 

reproductive success, such as increased 

cow/calf intervals (the time between 

successive calving). Second, while 

many mysticetes rely on seasonal 

migratory patterns that position them in 

a geographic location at a specific time 

of the year to take advantage of 

ephemeral large abundances of prey 

(i.e., invertebrates or small fish, which 

they eat by the thousands), odontocetes 

forage more homogeneously on one fish 

or squid at a time. Therefore, if 

odontocetes are interrupted while 

feeding, it is often possible to find more 

prey relatively nearby. 

Dwarf Sperm Whales and Pygmy 

Sperm Whales (Kogia species)—This 

section builds on the broader 

odontocete discussion above and brings 

together the discussion of the different 

types and amounts of take that these 

two species are likely to incur, the 

applicable mitigation, and the status of 

the species to support the negligible 

impact determinations for each species. 

Some Level A harassment by PTS is 

anticipated annually (6 takes for Dwarf 

and pygmy whale, see Table 31). 

In Table 31 above, we indicate for 

each species the total annual numbers of 

take by Level A and Level B harassment 

above for dwarf sperm whales and 

pygmy sperm whales, and a number 

indicating the instances of total take as 

a percentage of the abundance within 

the PMSR Study Area. Note also that, 

for dwarf and pygmy sperm whales (and 

all odontocetes), the abundance within 

the PMSR Study Area represents only a 

portion of the species abundance. 

As discussed above, the majority of 

takes by Level B harassment by 

behavioral disturbance of odontocetes, 

and thereby dwarf and pygmy sperm 

whales, is expected to be in the form of 

low severity of a shorter duration. As 

discussed earlier in this section, we 

anticipate more severe effects from takes 

when animals are exposed to higher 

received levels or for longer durations. 

Occasional milder Level B harassment 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37842 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

by behavioral disturbance, as is 

expected here, is unlikely to cause longterm consequences for either individual 

animals or populations. 

We note that dwarf and pygmy sperm 

whales, as HF-sensitive species, have a 

lower PTS threshold than all other 

groups and therefore are generally likely 

to experience larger amounts of TTS and 

PTS. NMFS accordingly has evaluated 

slightly higher numbers of take for these 

species than most odontocetes (some of 

which would have zero takes of TTS/ 

PTS). Even though the number of TTS 

and PTS takes are higher than for other 

odontocetes, any TTS and PTS is 

expected to be at a low to moderate 

level and for all of the reasons described 

above, TTS and PTS takes are not 

expected to impact reproduction or 

survival of any individual. 

Neither pygmy sperm whales nor 

dwarf sperm whales are listed under the 

ESA, and there are no known 

biologically important areas identified 

for these species in the PMSR Study 

Area. The CA/OR/WA stocks specified 

for pygmy sperm whales and dwarf 

sperm whales are found in the PMSR 

Study Area. There is no information on 

trends for these species within the 

PMSR Study Area. Both pygmy and 

dwarf sperm whales will benefit from 

the mitigation measures described 

earlier in the Proposed Mitigation 

Measures section. 

Regarding the magnitude of Level B 

harassment takes (TTS and behavioral 

disruption), the number of estimated 

total instances of take compared to the 

abundance is less than 2 percent for 

both dwarf and pygmy sperm whales in 

the PMSR Study Area (Table 31). 

Regarding the severity of those 

individual Level B harassment takes by 

behavioral disruption, we have 

explained that the duration of any 

exposure is expected to be between 

seconds and minutes (i.e., short 

duration). Regarding the severity of TTS 

takes, they are expected to be low to 

moderate level, of short duration, and 

are broadband that would be expected 

to interfere with dwarf or pygmy sperm 

whale communication or other 

important cues. Therefore, the 

associated lost opportunities and 

capabilities are not at a level that will 

impact reproduction or survival. Dwarf 

sperm whales and pygmy sperm whales 

could be taken by a small amount of 

PTS annually, of likely low to moderate 

severity as described previously. A 

small permanent loss of hearing 

sensitivity (PTS) may include some 

degree of energetic costs for 

compensating or may mean some small 

loss of opportunities or detection 

capabilities, but at the expected degree 

the estimated takes by Level A 

harassment takes by PTS for dwarf 

sperm whales and pygmy sperm whales 

are unlikely to impact behaviors, 

opportunities, or detection capabilities 

to a degree that will interfere with 

reproductive success or survival of any 

individuals, let alone affect annual rates 

of recruitment or survival for the 

species. 

Altogether, dwarf and pygmy sperm 

whales are not listed under the ESA and 

there are no known population trends. 

Our analysis suggests that a small 

portion of the stock in the PMSR Study 

Area will be taken, and disturbed at a 

low to moderate level, with those 

individuals likely not disturbed on more 

than one day a year. No serious injury 

or mortality is anticipated or proposed 

for authorization. The low magnitude 

and low to moderate severity of 

harassment effects is not expected to 

result in impacts on the reproduction or 

survival of any individuals, let alone 

have impacts on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. Therefore, the 

total take will not adversely affect this 

species through impacts on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival. Some 

individuals are estimated to be taken by 

PTS of likely low to moderate severity. 

A small permanent loss of hearing 

sensitivity (PTS) may include some 

degree of energetic costs for 

compensating or may mean some small 

loss of opportunities or detection 

capabilities, but at the expected scale 

the estimated takes by Level A 

harassment by PTS are unlikely to 

impact behaviors, opportunities, or 

detection capabilities to a degree that 

would interfere with reproductive 

success or survival of any individuals, 

let alone affect annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. For these 

reasons, we have preliminarily 

determined, in consideration of all of 

the effects of the Navy’s activities 

combined, that the proposed take will 

have a negligible impact on both dwarf 

and pygmy sperm whales. 

Sperm whale—This section brings 

together the broader discussion above 

with the discussion of the different 

types and amounts of take that sperm 

whales could potentially incur, the 

applicable mitigation, and the status of 

the species to support the negligible 

impact determination. 

In Table 31 above, we indicate the 

total annual numbers of take by Level A 

and Level B harassment for sperm 

whales, and a number indicating the 

instances of total take as a percentage of 

the abundance within the PMSR Study 

Area. Note also that, for sperm whales, 

the abundance within the PMSR Study 

represents only a portion of the species 

abundance. 

As discussed above, the majority of 

take by Level B harassment by 

behavioral disturbance of odontocetes, 

and thereby sperm whales, is expected 

to be in the form of low severity of a 

generally shorter duration and is 

unlikely to cause long-term 

consequences for either individual 

animals or populations. 

Sperm whales are listed as 

endangered under the ESA throughout 

their range, but there is no ESA 

designated critical habitat or known 

biologically important areas identified 

for this species within the PMSR Study 

Area. The CA/OR/WA stock occurs in 

the PMSR Study with a stable 

population trend (NMFS 2019). Sperm 

whales will benefit from the mitigation 

measures described earlier in the 

Proposed Mitigation Measures section. 

Regarding the magnitude of takes by 

Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral 

disruption), the number of estimated 

total instances of take compared to the 

abundance is less than 1 percent in the 

PMSR Study Area (Table 31). Regarding 

the severity of those individual takes by 

Level B harassment by behavioral 

disturbance, we have explained that the 

duration of any exposure is expected to 

be between seconds and minutes (i.e., 

short duration) and of a low level. 

Regarding the severity of TTS takes, 

they are expected to be low-level, of 

short duration, and mostly not in a 

frequency band that would be expected 

to interfere with important lowfrequency cues, and would not be at a 

level that will impact reproduction or 

survival. 

Altogether, sperm whales are listed as 

endangered under the ESA and have a 

stable population trend. Our analysis 

suggests that very few individuals 

within the PMSR Study Area will be 

taken and disturbed at a low level, with 

those individuals disturbed on likely 

one day within a year. No Level A 

harassment, serious injury, or mortality 

is anticipated or proposed for 

authorization. This low magnitude and 

severity of harassment effects is not 

expected to result in impacts on the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals, let alone have impacts on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Therefore, the total take will not 

adversely affect this species through 

impacts on annual rates of recruitment 

or survival. For these reasons, we have 

preliminarily determined, in 

consideration of all of the effects of the 

Navy’s activities combined, that the 

proposed take will have a negligible 

impact on sperm whales. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37843 

Porpoise (Dall’s Porpoise)—This 

section builds on the broader 

odontocete discussion above and brings 

together the discussion of the different 

types and amounts of take that Dall’s 

porpoise are likely to incur, the 

applicable mitigation, and the status of 

the species to support the negligible 

impact determinations for each species. 

Some Level A harassment by PTS is 

anticipated annually (49 takes, see Table 

31). 

In Table 31 above, we indicate the 

total annual numbers of take by Level A 

and Level B harassment for Dall’s 

porpoise, and a number indicating the 

instances of total take as a percentage of 

the abundance within the PMSR Study 

Area. Note also that, for Dall’s porpoise 

(and all odontocetes), the abundance 

within the PMSR Study Area represents 

only a portion of the species abundance. 

As discussed above, the majority of 

takes by Level B harassment by 

behavioral disturbance of odontocetes, 

and thereby Dall’s porpoise, is expected 

to be in the form of low to moderate 

severity of a shorter duration. As 

discussed earlier in this section, we 

anticipate more severe effects from takes 

when animals are exposed to higher 

received levels or for longer durations. 

Occasional milder Level B harassment 

by behavioral disturbance, as is 

expected here, is unlikely to cause longterm consequences for either individual 

animals or populations. 

We note that Dall’s porpoise, as HFsensitive species, have a lower PTS 

threshold than all other groups and 

therefore are generally likely to 

experience larger amounts of TTS and 

PTS. NMFS accordingly has evaluated 

slightly higher numbers of take for these 

species than most odontocetes (some of 

which would have zero takes of TTS/ 

PTS). Therefore, even though the 

number of TTS and PTS takes are higher 

than for other odontocetes, any TTS or 

PTS is expected to be at a low to 

moderate level and for all of the reasons 

described above, TTS and PTS takes are 

not expected to impact reproduction or 

survival of any individual. 

Dall’s porpoise are not listed under 

the ESA, and there are no known 

biologically important areas identified 

for these species in the PMSR Study 

Area. The CA/OR/WA stock is found in 

the PMSR Study Area. There is no 

information on trends for this species 

within the PMSR Study Area. Dall’s 

porpoise will benefit from the 

mitigation measures described earlier in 

the Proposed Mitigation Measures 

section. 

Regarding the magnitude of Level B 

harassment takes (TTS and behavioral 

disruption), the number of estimated 

total instances of take compared to the 

abundance is less than 3 percent for 

Dall’ porpoise in the PMSR Study Area 

(Table 31). Regarding the severity of 

those individual Level B harassment 

takes by behavioral disruption, we have 

explained that the duration of any 

exposure is expected to be between 

seconds and minutes (i.e., relatively 

short duration). Regarding the severity 

of TTS takes, they are expected to be 

low to moderate level, of short duration, 

and mostly not in a frequency band that 

would be expected to interfere with 

communication and, therefore, the 

associated lost opportunities and 

capabilities are not at a level that will 

impact reproduction or survival. Dall’s 

porpoise could be taken by a small 

amount of PTS annually, of likely low 

to moderate severity as described 

previously. A small permanent loss of 

hearing sensitivity (PTS) may include 

some degree of energetic costs for 

compensating or may mean some small 

loss of opportunities or detection 

capabilities, but at the expected degree 

the estimated takes by Level A 

harassment takes by PTS for Dall’s 

porpoise are unlikely to impact 

behaviors, opportunities, or detection 

capabilities to a degree that will 

interfere with reproductive success or 

survival of any individuals, let alone 

affect annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. 

Altogether, Dall’s porpoise are not 

listed under the ESA and there are no 

known population trends for the CA/ 

OR/WA stock. Our analysis suggests 

that a small portion of the stock will be 

taken, and disturbed at a low to 

moderate level, with those individuals 

likely not disturbed on more than one 

day or so a year. No serious injury or 

mortality is anticipated or proposed for 

authorization. The low magnitude and 

low to moderate severity of harassment 

effects is not expected to result in 

impacts on the reproduction or survival 

of any individuals, let alone have 

impacts on annual rates of recruitment 

or survival. Therefore, the total take will 

not adversely affect this species through 

impacts on annual rates of recruitment 

or survival. Some individuals are 

estimated to be taken by PTS of likely 

low to moderate severity. A small 

permanent loss of hearing sensitivity 

(PTS) may include some degree of 

energetic costs for compensating or may 

mean some small loss of opportunities 

or detection capabilities, but at the 

expected scale the estimated takes by 

Level A harassment by PTS are unlikely 

to impact behaviors, opportunities, or 

detection capabilities to a degree that 

would interfere with reproductive 

success or survival of any individuals, 

let alone affect annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. For these 

reasons, we have preliminarily 

determined, in consideration of all of 

the effects of the Navy’s activities 

combined, that the proposed take will 

have a negligible impact on Dall’s 

porpoise. 

Small Whales and Dolphins—This 

section builds on the broader discussion 

above and brings together the discussion 

of the different types and amounts of 

take that different small whale and 

dolphin species are likely to incur, the 

applicable mitigation, and the status of 

the species to support the negligible 

impact determinations for each species. 

In Table 31 above, we indicate for 

each species the total annual numbers of 

take by Level A and Level B harassment 

for dolphins and small whales, and a 

number indicating the instances of total 

take as a percentage of abundance in the 

PMSR Study Area. Note also that, for 

dolphins and small whales, the 

abundance within the PMSR Study Area 

represents only a portion of the 

respective species abundance. 

The majority of takes by Level B 

harassment are expected to be in the 

form of low severity of a shorter 

duration. Occasional milder Level B 

harassment by behavioral disturbance, 

as is expected here, is unlikely to cause 

long-term consequences for either 

individual animals or populations that 

have any effect on reproduction or 

survival. Limited Level A harassment 

(PTS) is anticipated and proposed for 

six species (Long and short-beaked 

common dolphins, bottlenose dolphin, 

Risso’s dolphin, Pacific white-sided 

dolphin, and Northern right whale 

dolphin). 

Research and observations show that 

if delphinids are exposed to sounds they 

may react in a number of ways 

depending on their experience with the 

sound source and what activity they are 

engaged in at the time of the acoustic 

exposure. Delphinids may not react at 

all until the sound source is 

approaching within a few hundred 

meters, such as with a ship with hullmounted sonar, to within a few 

kilometers, depending on the 

environmental conditions and species. 

Some dolphin species (the more surfacedwelling taxa—typically those with 

‘‘dolphin’’ in the common name, such 

as bottlenose dolphins, spotted 

dolphins, spinner dolphins, roughtoothed dolphins, etc., but not Risso’s 

dolphins), especially those residing in 

more industrialized or busy areas, have 

demonstrated more tolerance for 

disturbance and loud sounds and many 

of these species are known to approach 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37844 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

vessels to bow-ride. These species are 

often considered generally less sensitive 

to disturbance. Dolphins and small 

whales that reside in deeper waters and 

generally have fewer interactions with 

human activities are more likely to 

demonstrate more typical avoidance 

reactions and foraging interruptions as 

described above in the odontocete 

overview. 

All the dolphin and small whale 

species discussed in this section will 

benefit from the mitigation measures 

described earlier in the Proposed 

Mitigation Measures section. 

None of the small whale and dolphin 

species are listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the ESA. 

There are CA/OR/WA stocks for most of 

the small whales and dolphins found in 

the PMSR Study Area and most have 

unknown population trends, with the 

exception of the Short-beaked common 

dolphin that has a stable population 

trend and the Long-beaked common 

dolphin (California stock) that has an 

increasing population trend. 

Regarding the magnitude of takes by 

Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral 

disturbance), the number of estimated 

total instances of take compared to the 

abundance is less than one percent for 

the dolphins and small whales in the 

PMSR Study Area (Table 31). Regarding 

the severity of those individual takes by 

Level B harassment by behavioral 

disturbance, we have explained the 

duration of any exposure is expected to 

be between seconds and minutes (i.e., 

short duration). Regarding the severity 

of takes by TTS, they are expected to be 

low-level, of short duration and not at 

a level that will impact reproduction or 

survival. One to two individuals each of 

four species (Bottlenose dolphin, 

Northern right whale dolphin, Pacific 

white-dolphin, Risso’s dolphin) are 

estimated to be taken by one to two PTS 

annually, of likely low severity as 

described previously. Slightly more 

takes by PTS for short-beaked common 

dolphin and long-beaked common 

dolphin are proposed for authorization, 

15 and 9 takes, respectively. A small 

permanent loss of hearing sensitivity 

may include some degree of energetic 

costs for compensating or may mean 

some small loss of opportunities or 

detection capabilities, but at the 

expected scale the estimated takes by 

Level A harassment by PTS are unlikely 

to impact behaviors, opportunities, or 

detection capabilities to a degree that 

will interfere with reproductive success 

or survival of any individuals, let alone 

affect annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. 

Altogether, none of the small whale or 

dolphin species are listed under the 

ESA and there are no known population 

trends for most species. No serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

proposed for authorization. Our analysis 

suggests that only a small portion of the 

individuals of any of these species in 

the PMSR Study Area will be taken and 

disturbed at a low level, with those 

individuals likely disturbed no more 

than a day a year. Some take by PTS for 

five dolphin species is anticipated and 

proposed for authorization, but at the 

expected scale the estimated take by 

Level A harassment by PTS is unlikely 

to impact behaviors, opportunities, or 

detection capabilities to a degree that 

would interfere with reproductive 

success or survival of any individuals, 

let alone annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. This low magnitude and 

severity of harassment effects is not 

expected to result in impacts on the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individuals, let alone have impacts on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Therefore, the total take will not 

adversely affect these species through 

impacts on annual rates of recruitment 

or survival. For these reasons, we have 

preliminarily determined, in 

consideration of all of the effects of the 

Navy’s activities combined, that the 

authorized take will have a negligible 

impact on all of these species of small 

whales and dolphins. 

Pinnipeds 

This section builds on the broader 

discussion above and brings together the 

discussion of the different types and 

amounts of take that different species 

and stocks of pinnipeds will likely 

incur, the applicable mitigation, and the 

status of the species and stocks to 

support the negligible impact 

determinations for each species or stock. 

We have described (above in the 

General Negligible Impact Analysis 

section) the unlikelihood of any 

masking having effects that will impact 

the reproduction or survival of any of 

the individual marine mammals affected 

by the Navy’s activities. We have also 

described in the Potential Effects of 

Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat section of 

this proposed rule that the specified 

activities would not have adverse or 

long-term impacts on marine mammal 

habitat, and therefore the unlikelihood 

of any habitat impacts affecting the 

reproduction or survival of any 

individual marine mammals affected by 

the Navy’s activities. For pinnipeds, no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or proposed for authorization. Here, we 

include information that applies to all of 

the pinniped species and stocks. 

In Table 31 and 32 above, we indicate 

the total annual numbers of take by 

Level A and Level B harassment for 

pinnipeds, and a number indicating the 

instances of total take as a percentage of 

the abundance within the PMSR Study 

Area by explosives and also by missile 

and rocket launch activities on SNI. 

Note also that, for pinniped species and 

stocks, the abundance within the PMSR 

Study Area represents only a portion of 

the species abundance. 

The majority of take by Level B 

harassment by behavioral disturbance of 

pinnipeds, is expected to be in the form 

of low severity of short duration for 

explosives and low to moderate severity 

of short duration for target and missile 

launches on SNI and is unlikely to 

cause long-term consequences for either 

individual animals or populations. 

Pinnipeds in the PMSR Study Area 

are not listed under the ESA with the 

exception of the threatened Guadalupe 

fur seal (Mexico stock), but there is no 

ESA designated critical habitat for the 

Guadalupe fur seal. Pupping does occur 

on SNI beaches, January through July. 

The Guadalupe fur seal has an 

increasing population trend. 

Nevertheless, there is an active UME for 

Guadalupe fur seal. Since 2015, there 

have been 492 strandings of Guadalupe 

fur seals (including live and dead seals). 

However, we do not anticipate any 

mortality or impacts on reproduction or 

survival of any individuals, and, given 

the low magnitude and severity of 

effects from Level B harassment only (2 

Level B harassment takes annually), 

even with the UME they will not result 

in impacts on individual reproduction 

or survival, much less annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. Therefore, 

population-level effects to Guadalupe 

fur seal from the Navy’s activities 

despite the UME are not anticipated. 

The California sea lion UME was 

recently closed, as elevated strandings 

occurred from 2013–2016. The U.S. 

stock of California sea lions has an 

increasing population trend. The 

California stocks of Northern Elephant 

seal and Northern fur seals also have an 

increasing population trend. The 

California stock of harbor seals has a 

stable population trend. Pinnipeds will 

benefit from the mitigation measures 

described earlier in the Proposed 

Mitigation Measures section. 

Regarding the magnitude of takes by 

Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral 

disruption) for explosives, the number 

of estimated total instances of take 

compared to the abundance is 

approximately 1 percent or less in the 

PMSR Study Area (Table 31). Regarding 

the magnitude of takes by Level B 

harassment (TTS and behavioral 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37845 

disruption) for target and missile 

launches, the number of estimated total 

instances of take compared to the 

abundance is less than five percent in 

the PMSR Study Area (Table 32). Given 

this information and the ranges of these 

stocks (i.e., large ranges, but with 

individuals often staying in the vicinity 

of haulouts), only a small portion of 

individuals in these stocks are likely 

impacted and repeated exposures of 

individuals are not anticipated during 

explosives (i.e., individuals are not 

expected to be taken on more than a few 

days within a year). Regarding the 

severity of those individual takes by 

Level B harassment by behavioral 

disturbance for explosives, the duration 

of any exposure is expected to be 

between seconds and minutes (i.e., short 

duration). Regarding the severity of TTS 

takes from explosives, they are expected 

to be of low-level and short duration, 

and any associated lost opportunities 

and capabilities would not be at a level 

that will impact reproduction or 

survival. 

Three species of pinnipeds (harbor 

seals, Northern elephant seal, and 

California sea lions) are estimated to be 

taken by PTS from explosives, 14, 22, 

and 2 takes, respectively, of likely low 

severity. A small permanent loss of 

hearing sensitivity (PTS) may include 

some degree of energetic costs for 

compensating or may mean some small 

loss of opportunities or detection 

capabilities, but at the expected scale 

the estimated takes by Level A 

harassment by PTS are unlikely to 

impact behaviors, opportunities, or 

detection capabilities to a degree that 

will interfere with reproductive success 

or survival of any individuals, let alone 

affect annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. 

For missile launch activities on SNI, 

the proposed activities may result in 

take, in the form of Level B harassment 

only, from airborne sounds of missile 

launch activities (Table 32). A portion of 

individuals in these stocks are likely 

impacted and repeated exposures of 

individuals are anticipated during 

missile and target launches for 

pinnipeds hauled out on SNI (i.e., 

individuals are expected to be taken on 

up to several days within a year), 

however, there is no reason to expect 

that these disturbances would occur on 

sequential days. 

Regarding the magnitude of takes by 

Level B harassment, the number of 

estimated total instances of take 

compared to the abundance is less than 

5 percent on SNI for all pinniped 

species (Table 32). Based on the best 

available information, including 

monitoring reports from similar 

activities that have been authorized by 

NMFS, Level B harassment will likely 

be limited behavioral reactions such as 

alerting to the noise, with some animals 

possibly moving toward or entering the 

water (i.e., movements of more than 10 

m and occasional flushing into the 

water with return to haulouts), 

depending on the species and the 

intensity of the launch noise. Regarding 

the severity of those individual takes by 

Level B harassment, any exposure is 

expected to be low to moderate and of 

relatively short duration and are 

unlikely to result in hearing impairment 

or to significantly disrupt foraging 

behavior. Given the launch acceleration 

and flight speed of the missiles, most 

launch events are of extremely short 

duration. Strong launch sounds are 

typically detectable near the beaches at 

western SNI for no more than a few 

seconds per launch (Holst et al., 2010; 

Holst et al., 2005a; Holst et al., 2008; 

Holst et al., 2005b). Pinnipeds hauled 

out on beaches where missiles fly over 

launched from the Alpha Launch 

Complex routinely haul out and 

continue to use these beaches in large 

numbers, but at the Building 807 

Launch Complex few pinnipeds are 

known to haul out on the shoreline 

immediately adjacent to this launch site. 

We do not expect repeated exposures to 

occur on sequential days as it can take 

up to several weeks of planning between 

launch events. Responses of pinnipeds 

on beaches during launches are highly 

variable. Harbor seals can be more 

reactive when hauled out compared to 

other species, such as northern elephant 

seals. Northern elephant seals generally 

exhibit no reaction at all, except 

perhaps a heads-up response or some 

stirring. However, stronger reactions 

may occur if California sea lions are in 

the same area mingled with the northern 

elephant seals and the sea lions react 

strongly. While the reactions are 

variable, and can involve abrupt 

movements by some individuals, 

biological impacts of these responses 

appear to be limited. Even some number 

of repeated instances of Level B 

harassment (with no particular 

likelihood of sequential days or more 

sustained effect) of some small subset of 

an overall stock is unlikely to result in 

any decrease in fitness to those 

individuals, and thus would not result 

in any adverse impact to a stock as a 

whole. Flushing of pinnipeds into the 

water has the potential to result in 

mother-pup separation, or a stampede, 

either of which could potentially result 

in serious injury or mortality. For 

example, in some cases, harbor seals at 

SNI appear to be more responsive 

during the pupping/breeding season 

(Holst et al. 2005a; Holst et al. 2008), 

while in others, mothers and pups seem 

to react less to launches than lone 

individuals (Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 

2012), and California sea lions seem to 

be consistently less responsive during 

the pupping season (Holst et al. 2010; 

Holst et al. 2005a; Holst et al. 2008; 

Holst et al. 2011; Holst et al. 2005b; 

Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 2012). Though 

pup abandonment could theoretically 

result from these reactions, site-specific 

monitoring data indicate that pup 

abandonment is not likely to occur as a 

result of the target and missile launches, 

as it has not been previously observed. 

As part of mitigation the Navy would 

avoid target and missile launches during 

the peak pinniped pupping season to 

the maximum extent practicable, and 

missiles would not cross over pinniped 

haulouts at elevations less than 305 m 

(1,000 ft). Based on the best available 

information, including reports from 

almost 20 years of marine mammal 

monitoring during launch events, no 

injury, serious injury, or mortality of 

marine mammals has occurred from any 

flushing events or is anticipated or 

proposed for authorization. 

Altogether, pinnipeds are not listed 

under the ESA (except for Guadalupe 

fur seal that are threatened) and all 

pinniped stocks have increasing, stable, 

or unknown population trends. Our 

analysis suggests that a small portion of 

the stocks will be taken and disturbed 

at a low-moderate level, with those 

individuals disturbed on likely one day 

within a year from explosives and some 

individuals on SNI likely disturbed a 

few days a year within a year from target 

and missile launches. No serious injury 

or mortality is anticipated or proposed 

for authorization. No more than 22 

individuals from three pinniped stocks 

are estimated to be taken by PTS, of 

likely low severity, annually. 

Additionally, no PTS is expected for 

Guadalupe fur seal. This low to 

moderate magnitude and severity of 

harassment effects is not expected to 

result in impacts on the reproduction or 

survival of any individuals (either alone 

or in combination with the effects of the 

UME for Guadulupe fur seal), let alone 

have impacts on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival, and therefore 

the total take will not adversely affect 

this species through impacts on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival. For 

these reasons, we have preliminarily 

determined, in consideration of all of 

the effects of the Navy’s activities 

combined, that the proposed take will 

have a negligible impact on pinnipeds. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37846 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Determination 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, NMFS preliminarily 

finds that the total marine mammal take 

from the Specified Activities will have 

a negligible impact on all affected 

marine mammal species. In addition as 

described previously, the Navy’s 

proposed implementation of monitoring 

and mitigation measures would further 

reduce impacts to marine mammals. 

Subsistence Harvest of Marine 

Mammals 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization, NMFS must find that the 

specified activity will not have an 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ on the 

subsistence uses of the affected marine 

mammal species or stocks by Alaskan 

Natives. NMFS has defined 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity: (1) That is likely to 

reduce the availability of the species to 

a level insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing 

subsistence users; or (iii) Placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and (2) That cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met. 

To our knowledge there are no 

relevant subsistence uses of the affected 

marine mammal stocks or species 

implicated by this action. Therefore, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the total taking of affected species 

or stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Classification 

Endangered Species Act 

There are six marine mammal species 

under NMFS jurisdiction that are listed 

as endangered or threatened under the 

ESA with confirmed or possible 

occurrence in the PMSR Study Area: 

Blue whale, fin whale, gray whale, 

humpback whale, sei whale, and sperm 

whale. NMFS published a proposed rule 

on ESA-designated critical habitat for 

humpback whales (84 FR 54354; 

October 9, 2019). 

The Navy will consult with NMFS 

pursuant to section 7 of the ESA for 

PMSR Study Area activities. NMFS will 

also consult internally on the issuance 

of the regulations and LOA under 

section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

NMFS will work with NOAA’s Office 

of National Marine Sanctuaries to fulfill 

our responsibilities under the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act as warranted 

and will complete any NMSA 

requirements prior to a determination 

on the issuance of the final rule and 

LOA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must evaluate our 

proposed actions and alternatives with 

respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. Accordingly, 

NMFS plans to adopt the PMSR FEIS/ 

OEIS for the PMSR Study Area, 

provided our independent evaluation of 

the document finds that it includes 

adequate information analyzing the 

effects on the human environment of 

issuing regulations and LOAs under the 

MMPA. NMFS is a cooperating agency 

on the 2020 PMSR DEIS/OEIS and has 

worked extensively with the Navy in 

developing the document. The 2020 

PMSR DEIS/OEIS was made available 

for public comment (85 FR 55257, April 

24, 2020) (Also see https://pmsreis.com). We will review all comments 

submitted in response to the request for 

comments on the 2020 PMSR DEIS/ 

OEIS and in response to the request for 

comments on this proposed rule prior to 

concluding our NEPA process or making 

a final decision on this proposed rule 

for the issuance of regulations under the 

MMPA and any subsequent issuance of 

a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to the 

Navy to incidentally take marine 

mammals during the specified activities. 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that this proposed rule 

is not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for 

Regulation of the Department of 

Commerce has certified to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration that this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The RFA requires Federal agencies to 

prepare an analysis of a rule’s impact on 

small entities whenever the agency is 

required to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking. However, a Federal agency 

may certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 

that the action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Navy is the sole entity that would 

be affected by this rulemaking, and the 

Navy is not a small governmental 

jurisdiction, small organization, or small 

business, as defined by the RFA. Any 

requirements imposed by an LOA 

issued pursuant to these regulations, 

and any monitoring or reporting 

requirements imposed by these 

regulations, would be applicable only to 

the Navy. NMFS does not expect the 

issuance of these regulations or the 

associated LOAs to result in any 

impacts to small entities pursuant to the 

RFA. Because this action, if adopted, 

would directly affect the Navy and not 

a small entity, NMFS concludes that the 

action would not result in a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218 

Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental 

take, Indians, Labeling, Marine 

mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Seafood, Sonar, Transportation. 

Dated: July 1, 2021. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 218—REGULATIONS 

GOVERNING THE TAKING AND 

IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 218 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Revise subpart B to read as follows: 

Subpart B—Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Point Mugu Sea 

Range (PMSR) Training and Testing (PMSR) 

Study Area 

Sec. 

218.10 Specified activity and geographical 

region. 

218.11 Effective dates. 

218.12 Permissible methods of taking. 

218.13 Prohibitions. 

218.14 Mitigation requirements. 

218.15 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

218.16 Letters of Authorization. 

218.17 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

218.18 Reserved 

218.19 Reserved 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37847 

Subpart B—Taking and Importing 

Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Point 

Mugu Sea Range (PMSR) Training and 

Testing (PMSR) Study Area 

§ 218.10 Specified activity and 

geographical region. 

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply 

only to the U.S. Navy for the taking of 

marine mammals that occurs in the area 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section and that occurs incidental to the 

activities listed in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(b) The taking of marine mammals by 

the Navy under this subpart may be 

authorized in a Letter of Authorization 

(LOA) only if it occurs within the Point 

Mugu Sea Range (PMSR) Training and 

Testing Study Area. The PMSR Study 

Area is located adjacent to Los Angeles, 

Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis 

Obispo Counties along the Pacific Coast 

of Southern California and includes a 

36,000-square-mile sea range. The two 

primary components of the PMSR 

Complex are Special Use Airspace and 

the ocean Operating Areas. 

(c) The taking of marine mammals by 

the Navy is only authorized if it occurs 

incidental to the Navy conducting 

training and testing activities, including: 

(1) Training. 

(i) Air warfare; 

(ii) Electronic warfare; and 

(iii) Surface warfare. 

(2) Testing. 

(i) Air warfare; 

(ii) Electronic warfare; and 

(iii) Surface warfare. 

§ 218.11 Effective dates. 

Regulations in this subpart are 

effective from October 31, 2021, through 

October 30, 2028. 

§ 218.12 Permissible methods of taking. 

(a) Under an LOA issued pursuant to 

§§ 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.16, 

the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter 

‘‘Navy’’) may incidentally, but not 

intentionally, take marine mammals 

within the area described in § 218.10(b) 

by Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment associated with the use of 

explosives and missile launch activities, 

provided the activity is in compliance 

with all terms, conditions, and 

requirements of the regulations in this 

subpart and the applicable LOA. 

(b) The incidental take of marine 

mammals by the activities listed in 

§ 218.10(c) is limited to the species and 

stocks listed in Table 1 of this section. 

TABLE 1 TO § 218.12(b) 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

Blue whale .......................................................... Balaenoptera musculus ................................... Eastern North Pacific. 

Fin whale ............................................................ Balaenoptera physalus .................................... California, Oregon, and Washington. 

Gray whale ......................................................... Eschrichtius robustus ....................................... Eastern North Pacific. 

Humpback whale ................................................ Megaptera novaeangliae ................................. California, Oregon, Washington. 

Minke whale ....................................................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata .............................. California, Oregon, and Washington. 

Common Bottlenose dolphin .............................. Tursiops truncatus ........................................... California, Oregon, and Washington Offshore. 

Dall’s porpoise .................................................... Phocoenoides dalli ........................................... California, Oregon, and Washington. 

Dwarf sperm whale ............................................. Kogia sima ....................................................... California, Oregon, and Washington. 

Long-beaked common dolphin ........................... Delphinus capensis .......................................... California. 

Mesoplodont beaked whales 4 ............................ Mesoplodon spp ............................................... California, Oregon, and Washington. 

Northern right whale dolphin .............................. Lissodelphis borealis ........................................ California, Oregon, and Washington. 

Pacific white-sided dolphin ................................. Lagenorhynchus obliquidens ........................... California, Oregon, and Washington. 

Pygmy killer whale .............................................. Feresa attenuata.

Pygmy sperm whale ........................................... Kogia breviceps ............................................... California, Oregon, and Washington. 

Risso’s dolphins ................................................. Grampus griseus .............................................. California, Oregon, and Washington. 

Short-beaked common dolphin .......................... Delphinus delphis ............................................. California, Oregon, and Washington. 

Sperm whale ...................................................... Physeter macrocephalus ................................. California, Oregon, and Washington. 

Striped dolphin ................................................... Stenella coeruleoalba ...................................... California, Oregon, and Washington. 

Harbor seal ......................................................... Phoca vitulina ................................................... California. 

Northern elephant seal ....................................... Mirounga angustirostris .................................... California. 

California sea lion ............................................... Zalophus californianus ..................................... U.S. Stock. 

Guadalupe fur seal ............................................. Arctocephalus townsendi ................................. Mexico to California. 

§ 218.13 Prohibitions. 

Notwithstanding incidental takings 

contemplated in § 218.12(a) and 

authorized by an LOA issued under 

§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.16, 

no person in connection with the 

activities listed in § 218.10(c) may: 

(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the 

terms, conditions, and requirements of 

this subpart or an LOA issued under 

§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.16; 

(b) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in § 218.12(b); 

(c) Take any marine mammal 

specified in § 218.12(b) in any manner 

other than as specified in the LOA 

issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter 

and 218.16; 

(d) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 218.12(b) if NMFS determines such 

taking results in more than a negligible 

impact on the species or stock of such 

marine mammal. 

§ 218.14 Mitigation requirements. 

When conducting the activities 

identified in § 218.10(c), the mitigation 

measures contained in any LOA issued 

under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 

218.16 must be implemented. These 

mitigation measures include, but are not 

limited to: 

(a) Procedural mitigation. Procedural 

mitigation is mitigation that the Navy 

must implement whenever and 

wherever an applicable training or 

testing activity takes place within the 

PMSR Study Area for each applicable 

activity category or stressor category and 

includes acoustic stressors (i.e., 

weapons firing noise), explosive 

stressors (i.e., medium-caliber and largecaliber projectiles, missiles and rockets, 

bombs), and physical disturbance and 

strike stressors (i.e., vessel movement; 

towed in-water devices; small-, 

medium-, and large-caliber nonexplosive practice munitions; nonexplosive missiles and rockets; and nonexplosive bombs). 

(1) Environmental awareness and 

education. Appropriate Navy personnel 

(including civilian personnel) involved 

in mitigation and training or testing 

reporting under the specified activities 

will complete one or more modules of 

the U.S Navy Afloat Environmental 

Compliance Training Series, as 

identified in their career path training 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37848 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

plan. Modules include: Introduction to 

the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental 

Compliance Training Series, Marine 

Species Awareness Training; and U.S. 

Navy Protective Measures Assessment 

Protocol. 

(2) Weapons firing noise. Weapons 

firing noise associated with large-caliber 

gunnery activities. 

(i) Number of Lookouts and 

observation platform. One Lookout must 

be positioned on the ship conducting 

the firing. Depending on the activity, the 

Lookout could be the same as the one 

provided for under ‘‘Small-, medium-, 

and large-caliber non-explosive practice 

munitions’’ in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this 

section. 

(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 

The mitigation zone must be thirty 

degrees on either side of the firing line 

out to 70 yd from the muzzle of the 

weapon being fired. 

(A) Prior to the initial start of the 

activity. Navy personnel must observe 

the mitigation zone for floating 

vegetation and marine mammals; if 

floating vegetation or marine mammals 

are observed, Navy personnel must 

relocate or delay the start of weapons 

firing. 

(B) During the activity. Navy 

personnel must observe the mitigation 

zone for floating vegetation and marine 

mammals; if floating vegetation or 

marine mammals are observed, Navy 

personnel must cease weapons firing. 

(C) Commencement/recommencement 

conditions after a marine mammal 

sighting before or during the activity. 

Navy personnel must allow a sighted 

marine mammal to leave the mitigation 

zone prior to the initial start of the 

activity (by delaying the start) or during 

the activity (by not recommencing 

weapons firing) until one of the 

following conditions has been met: The 

animal is observed exiting the 

mitigation zone; the animal is thought to 

have exited the mitigation zone based 

on a determination of its course, speed, 

and movement relative to the firing 

ship; the mitigation zone has been clear 

from any additional sightings for 30 

minutes (min); or for mobile activities, 

the firing ship has transited a distance 

equal to double that of the mitigation 

zone size beyond the location of the last 

sighting. 

(3) Explosive medium-caliber and 

large-caliber projectiles. Gunnery 

activities using explosive mediumcaliber and large-caliber projectiles. 

Mitigation applies to activities using a 

surface target. 

(i) Number of Lookouts and 

observation platform. One Lookout must 

be on the vessel or aircraft conducting 

the activity. For activities using 

explosive large-caliber projectiles, 

depending on the activity, the Lookout 

could be the same as the one described 

in ‘‘Weapons firing noise’’ in paragraph 

(a)(2)(i) of this section. If additional 

platforms are participating in the 

activity, Navy personnel positioned on 

those assets (e.g., safety observers, 

evaluators) must support observing the 

relevant mitigation zone for marine 

mammals and other applicable 

biological resources while performing 

their regular duties. 

(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 

The relevant mitigation zones are as 

follows: 200 yd (182.88 m) around the 

intended impact location for air-tosurface activities using explosive 

medium-caliber projectiles; 600 yd 

(548.64 m) around the intended impact 

location for surface-to-surface activities 

using explosive medium-caliber 

projectiles; and 1,000 yd (914.4 m) 

around the intended impact location for 

surface-to-surface activities using 

explosive large-caliber projectiles. 

(A) Prior to the initial start of the 

activity (e.g., when maneuvering on 

station). Navy personnel must observe 

the mitigation zone for floating 

vegetation and marine mammals; if 

floating vegetation or marine mammals 

are observed, Navy personnel must 

relocate or delay the start of firing. 

(B) During the activity. Navy 

personnel must observe the mitigation 

zone for floating vegetation and marine 

mammals; if floating vegetation or 

marine mammals are observed, Navy 

personnel must cease firing. 

(C) Commencement/recommencement 

conditions after a marine mammal 

sighting before or during the activity. 

Navy personnel must allow a sighted 

marine mammal to leave the mitigation 

zone prior to the initial start of the 

activity (by delaying the start) or during 

the activity (by not recommencing 

firing) until one of the following 

conditions has been met: The animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; 

the animal is thought to have exited the 

mitigation zone based on a 

determination of its course, speed, and 

movement relative to the intended 

impact location; the mitigation zone has 

been clear from any additional sightings 

for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 

min for vessel-based firing; or for 

activities using mobile targets, the 

intended impact location has transited a 

distance equal to double that of the 

mitigation zone size beyond the location 

of the last sighting. 

(D) After completion of the activity 

(e.g., prior to maneuvering off station). 

Navy personnel must, when practical 

(e.g., when platforms are not 

constrained by fuel restrictions or 

mission-essential follow-on 

commitments), observe for marine 

mammals in the vicinity of where 

detonations occurred; if any injured or 

dead marine mammals are observed, 

Navy personnel must follow established 

incident reporting procedures. If 

additional platforms are supporting this 

activity (e.g., providing range clearance), 

Navy personnel on these assets must 

assist in the visual observation of the 

area where detonations occurred. 

(4) Explosive missiles and rockets. 

Aircraft-deployed explosive missiles 

and rockets. Mitigation applies to 

activities using a maritime surface target 

at ranges up to 75 nmi. 

(i) Number of Lookouts and 

observation platform. One Lookout must 

be positioned in an aircraft. If additional 

platforms are participating in the 

activity, Navy personnel positioned on 

those assets (e.g., safety observers, 

evaluators) must support observing the 

relevant mitigation zone for marine 

mammals and other applicable 

biological resources while performing 

their regular duties. 

(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 

The relevant mitigation zones are as 

follows: 900 yd (822.96 m) around the 

intended impact location for missiles or 

rockets with 0.6–20 lb net explosive 

weight; and 2,000 yd (1,828.8 m) around 

the intended impact location for 

missiles with 21–500 lb net explosive 

weight. 

(A) Prior to the initial start of the 

activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the 

mitigation zone). Navy personnel must 

observe the mitigation zone for floating 

vegetation and marine mammals; if 

floating vegetation or marine mammals 

are observed, Navy personnel must 

relocate or delay the start of firing. 

(B) During the activity. Navy 

personnel must observe the mitigation 

zone for floating vegetation and marine 

mammals; if floating vegetation or 

marine mammals are observed, Navy 

personnel must cease firing. 

(C) Commencement/recommencement 

conditions after a marine mammal 

sighting before or during the activity. 

Navy personnel must allow a sighted 

marine mammal to leave the mitigation 

zone prior to the initial start of the 

activity (by delaying the start) or during 

the activity (by not recommencing 

firing) until one of the following 

conditions has been met: The animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; 

the animal is thought to have exited the 

mitigation zone based on a 

determination of its course, speed, and 

movement relative to the intended 

impact location; or the mitigation zone 

has been clear from any additional 

sightings for 10 min when the activity 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37849 

involves aircraft that have fuel 

constraints, or 30 min when the activity 

involves aircraft that are not typically 

fuel constrained. 

(D) After completion of the activity 

(e.g., prior to maneuvering off station). 

Navy personnel must, when practical 

(e.g., when platforms are not 

constrained by fuel restrictions or 

mission-essential follow-on 

commitments), observe for marine 

mammals in the vicinity of where 

detonations occurred; if any injured or 

dead marine mammals are observed, 

Navy personnel must follow established 

incident reporting procedures. If 

additional platforms are supporting this 

activity (e.g., providing range clearance), 

Navy personnel on these assets will 

assist in the visual observation of the 

area where detonations occurred. 

(5) Explosive bombs. 

(i) Number of Lookouts and 

observation platform. One Lookout must 

be positioned in an aircraft conducting 

the activity. If additional platforms are 

participating in the activity, Navy 

personnel positioned on those assets 

(e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must 

support observing the relevant 

mitigation zone for marine mammals 

and other applicable biological 

resources while performing their regular 

duties. 

(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 

The relevant mitigation zones is 2,500 

yd (2,286 m) around the intended target. 

(A) Prior to the initial start of the 

activity (e.g., when arriving on station). 

Navy personnel must observe the 

mitigation zone for floating vegetation 

and marine mammals; if floating 

vegetation or marine mammals are 

observed, Navy personnel must relocate 

or delay the start of bomb deployment. 

(B) During the activity (e.g., during 

target approach). Navy personnel must 

observe the mitigation zone for floating 

vegetation and marine mammals; if 

floating vegetation or marine mammals 

are observed, Navy personnel must 

cease bomb deployment. 

(C) Commencement/recommencement 

conditions after a marine mammal 

sighting before or during the activity. 

Navy personnel must allow a sighted 

marine mammal to leave the mitigation 

zone prior to the initial start of the 

activity (by delaying the start) or during 

the activity (by not recommencing bomb 

deployment) until one of the following 

conditions has been met: The animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; 

the animal is thought to have exited the 

mitigation zone based on a 

determination of its course, speed, and 

movement relative to the intended 

target; the mitigation zone has been 

clear from any additional sightings for 

10 min; or for activities using mobile 

targets, the intended target has transited 

a distance equal to double that of the 

mitigation zone size beyond the location 

of the last sighting. 

(D) After completion of the activity 

(e.g., prior to maneuvering off station). 

Navy personnel must, when practical 

(e.g., when platforms are not 

constrained by fuel restrictions or 

mission-essential follow-on 

commitments), observe for marine 

mammals in the vicinity of where 

detonations occurred; if any injured or 

dead marine mammals are observed, 

Navy personnel must follow established 

incident reporting procedures. If 

additional platforms are supporting this 

activity (e.g., providing range clearance), 

Navy personnel on these assets must 

assist in the visual observation of the 

area where detonations occurred. 

(6) Vessel movement. The mitigation 

will not be required if: The vessel’s 

safety is threatened; the vessel is 

restricted in its ability to maneuver (e.g., 

during launching and recovery of 

aircraft or landing craft, during towing 

activities, when mooring); the vessel is 

submerged or operated autonomously; 

or if impracticable based on mission 

requirements (e.g., during Amphibious 

Assault and Amphibious Raid 

exercises). 

(i) Number of Lookouts and 

observation platform. One Lookout must 

be on the vessel that is underway. 

(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 

The relevant mitigation zones are as 

follows: 500 yd (457.2 m) around 

whales; and 200 yd (182.88 m) around 

all other marine mammals (except bowriding dolphins and pinnipeds hauled 

out on man-made navigational 

structures, port structures, and vessels). 

(A) During the activity. When 

underway Navy personnel must observe 

the mitigation zone for marine 

mammals; if marine mammals are 

observed, Navy personnel must 

maneuver to maintain distance. 

(B) [Reserved] 

(iii) Reporting. If a marine mammal 

vessel strike occurs, Navy personnel 

must follow the established incident 

reporting procedures. 

(7) Small-, medium-, and large-caliber 

non-explosive practice munitions. 

Mitigation applies to activities using a 

surface target. 

(i) Number of Lookouts and 

observation platform. One Lookout must 

be positioned on the platform 

conducting the activity. Depending on 

the activity, the Lookout could be the 

same as the one described for ‘‘Weapons 

firing noise’’ in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of 

this section. 

(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 

The relevant mitigation zone is 200 yd 

(182.88 m) around the intended impact 

location. 

(A) Prior to the initial start of the 

activity (e.g., when maneuvering on 

station). Navy personnel must observe 

the mitigation zone for floating 

vegetation and marine mammals; if 

floating vegetation or marine mammals 

are observed, Navy personnel must 

relocate or delay the start of firing. 

(B) During the activity. Navy 

personnel must observe the mitigation 

zone for floating vegetation and marine 

mammals; if floating vegetation or 

marine mammals are observed, Navy 

personnel must cease firing. 

(C) Commencement/recommencement 

conditions after a marine mammal 

sighting before or during the activity. 

Navy personnel must allow a sighted 

marine mammal to leave the mitigation 

zone prior to the initial start of the 

activity (by delaying the start) or during 

the activity (by not recommencing 

firing) until one of the following 

conditions has been met: The animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; 

the animal is thought to have exited the 

mitigation zone based on a 

determination of its course, speed, and 

movement relative to the intended 

impact location; the mitigation zone has 

been clear from any additional sightings 

for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 

min for vessel-based firing; or for 

activities using a mobile target, the 

intended impact location has transited a 

distance equal to double that of the 

mitigation zone size beyond the location 

of the last sighting. 

(8) Non-explosive missiles and 

rockets. Aircraft-deployed nonexplosive missiles and rockets. 

Mitigation applies to activities using a 

maritime surface target at ranges of up 

to 75 nmi. 

(i) Number of Lookouts and 

observation platform. One Lookout must 

be positioned in an aircraft. 

(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 

The relevant mitigation zone is 900 yd 

(822.96 m) around the intended impact 

location. 

(A) Prior to the initial start of the 

activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the 

mitigation zone). Navy personnel must 

observe the mitigation zone for floating 

vegetation and marine mammals; if 

floating vegetation or marine mammals 

are observed, Navy personnel must 

relocate or delay the start of firing. 

(B) During the activity. Navy 

personnel must observe the mitigation 

zone for floating vegetation and marine 

mammals; if floating vegetation or 

marine mammals are observed, Navy 

personnel must cease firing. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37850 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

(C) Commencement/recommencement 

conditions after a marine mammal 

sighting prior to or during the activity. 

Navy personnel must allow a sighted 

marine mammal to leave the mitigation 

zone prior to the initial start of the 

activity (by delaying the start) or during 

the activity (by not recommencing 

firing) until one of the following 

conditions has been met: The animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; 

the animal is thought to have exited the 

mitigation zone based on a 

determination of its course, speed, and 

movement relative to the intended 

impact location; or the mitigation zone 

has been clear from any additional 

sightings for 10 min when the activity 

involves aircraft that have fuel 

constraints, or 30 min when the activity 

involves aircraft that are not typically 

fuel constrained. 

(9) Non-explosive bombs. Nonexplosive bombs. 

(i) Number of Lookouts and 

observation platform. One Lookout must 

be positioned in an aircraft. 

(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. 

The relevant mitigation zone is 900 yd 

(822.96 m) around the intended target. 

(A) Prior to the initial start of the 

activity (e.g., when arriving on station). 

Navy personnel must observe the 

mitigation zone for floating vegetation 

and marine mammals; if floating 

vegetation or marine mammals are 

observed, Navy personnel must relocate 

or delay the start of bomb deployment. 

(B) During the activity (e.g., during 

approach of the target or intended 

minefield location). Navy personnel 

must observe the mitigation zone for 

floating vegetation and marine 

mammals and, if floating vegetation or 

marine mammals are observed, Navy 

personnel must cease bomb 

deployment. 

(C) Commencement/recommencement 

conditions after a marine mammal 

sighting prior to or during the activity. 

Navy personnel must allow a sighted 

marine mammal to leave the mitigation 

zone prior to the initial start of the 

activity (by delaying the start) or during 

the activity (by not recommencing bomb 

deployment) until one of the following 

conditions has been met: The animal is 

observed exiting the mitigation zone; 

the animal is thought to have exited the 

mitigation zone based on a 

determination of its course, speed, and 

movement relative to the intended target 

or minefield location; the mitigation 

zone has been clear from any additional 

sightings for 10 min; or for activities 

using mobile targets, the intended target 

has transited a distance equal to double 

that of the mitigation zone size beyond 

the location of the last sighting. 

(10) Target and Missile Launches from 

San Nicolas Islands (SNI). Target and 

missile launch activities from SNI. 

(i) Mitigation zone and requirements. 

305 m (1,000 ft) over pinniped haulouts. 

Missiles must not cross over pinniped 

haulouts at elevations less than 305 m 

(1,000 ft) above the haulout. All manned 

aircraft and helicopter flight paths must 

maintain a minimum distance of 305 m 

(1,000 ft) from recognized seal haulouts 

and rookeries, except in emergencies or 

for real-time security incidents. For 

unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), the 

following minimum altitudes must be 

maintained over pinniped haulout areas 

and rookeries: Class 0–2 UAS must 

maintain a minimum altitude of 300 ft; 

Class 3 UAS must maintain a minimum 

altitude of 500 ft; Class 4 or 5 UAS must 

not be flown below 1,000 ft. 

(A) Pinniped haulouts. Navy 

personnel must not enter pinniped 

haulouts or rookeries. Personnel may be 

adjacent to pinniped haulouts and 

rookeries prior to and following a 

launch for monitoring purposes. 

(B) Number of Launch events. Navy 

must not conduct more than 40 launch 

events annually. Up to 10 launch events 

of the 40 annual launch events may 

occur at night. 

(C) Launches during the peak 

pinniped pupping season. Launches 

must be scheduled to avoid peak 

pinniped pupping periods between 

January and July, to the maximum 

extent practicable. 

(D) Unauthorized species. If a species 

for which authorization has not been 

granted is taken, or a species for which 

authorization has been granted but the 

authorized takes are met, the Navy must 

consult with NMFS to determine how to 

proceed. 

(E) Review of launch procedures. The 

Navy must review the launch procedure 

and monitoring methods, in cooperation 

with NMFS, if any incidents of injury or 

mortality of a pinniped are discovered 

during post-launch surveys, or if 

surveys indicate possible effects to the 

distribution, size, or productivity of the 

affected pinniped populations as a 

result of the specified activities. If 

necessary, appropriate changes must be 

made through modification to this LOA 

prior to conducting the next launch of 

the same vehicle. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(b) Seasonal awareness messages. In 

addition to procedural mitigation, Navy 

personnel must implement seasonal 

awareness notification messages 

throughout the PMSR Study Area to 

avoid interaction with large whales 

during transit. 

(1) Blue Whale Awareness 

Notification Message. 

(i) Navy personnel must issue a 

seasonal awareness notification message 

to alert Navy ships and aircraft 

operating throughout the PMSR Study 

Area to the possible presence of 

increased concentrations of blue whales 

June 1 through October 31. 

(ii) To maintain safety of navigation 

and to avoid interactions with large 

whales during transits, Navy personnel 

must instruct vessels to remain vigilant 

to the presence of blue whales that, 

when concentrated seasonally, may 

become vulnerable to vessel strikes. 

(iii) Navy personnel must use the 

information from the awareness 

notification message to assist their 

visual observation of applicable 

mitigation zones during training and 

testing activities and to aid in the 

implementation of procedural 

mitigation. 

(2) Gray Whale Awareness 

Notification Message. 

(i) Navy personnel must issue a 

seasonal awareness notification message 

to alert Navy ships and aircraft 

operating through the PMSR Study Area 

to the possible presence of increased 

concentrations of gray whales November 

1 through March 31. 

(ii) To maintain safety of navigation 

and to avoid interactions with large 

whales during transits, Navy personnel 

must instruct vessels to remain vigilant 

to the presence of gray whales that, 

when concentrated seasonally, may 

become vulnerable to vessel strikes. 

(iii) Navy personnel must use the 

information from the awareness 

notification message to assist their 

visual observation of applicable 

mitigation zones during training and 

testing activities and to aid in the 

implementation of procedural 

mitigation. 

(3) Fin Whale Awareness Notification 

Message. 

(i) Navy personnel must issue a 

seasonal awareness notification message 

to alert Navy ships and aircraft 

operating throughout the PMSR Study 

Area to the possible presence of 

increased concentrations of fin whales 

November 1 through May 31. 

(ii) To maintain safety of navigation 

and to avoid interactions with large 

whales during transits, Navy personnel 

must instruct vessels to remain vigilant 

to the presence of fin whales that, when 

concentrated seasonally, may become 

vulnerable to vessel strikes. 

(iii) Navy personnel must use the 

information from the awareness 

notification message to assist their 

visual observation of applicable 

mitigation zones during training and 

testing activities and to aid in the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37851 

implementation of procedural 

mitigation. 

§ 218.15 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

(a) Unauthorized take. Navy 

personnel must notify NMFS 

immediately (or as soon as operational 

security considerations allow) if the 

specified activity identified in § 218.10 

is thought to have resulted in the 

serious injury or mortality of any marine 

mammals, or in any Level A harassment 

or Level B harassment of marine 

mammals not identified in this subpart. 

(b) Monitoring and reporting under 

the LOA. The Navy must conduct all 

monitoring and reporting required 

under the LOA. The Navy will 

coordinate and discuss with NMFS how 

monitoring in the PMSR Study Area 

could contribute to the Navy’s Marine 

Species Monitoring Program. 

(c) Notification of injured, live 

stranded, or dead marine mammals. 

Navy personnel must consult the 

Notification and Reporting Plan, which 

sets out notification, reporting, and 

other requirements when dead, injured, 

or live stranded marine mammals are 

detected. The Notification and 

Reporting Plan is available at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-us-navytesting-and-training-activities-pointmugu-sea-range. 

(d) Pinniped Monitoring Plan on SNI. 

In consultation with NMFS, the Navy 

will implement a monitoring plan for 

beaches exposed to missile launch noise 

with the goal of assessing baseline 

pinniped distribution/abundance and 

potential changes in pinniped use of 

these beaches after launch events. 

Marine mammal monitoring shall 

include multiple surveys (e.g. timelapse photography) during the year that 

record the species, number of animals, 

general behavior, presence of pups, age 

class, gender and reactions to launch 

noise or other natural or human caused 

disturbances, in addition to 

environmental conditions that may 

include tide, wind speed, air 

temperature, and swell. In addition, 

video and acoustic monitoring of up to 

three pinniped haulout areas and 

rookeries must be conducted during 

launch events that include missiles or 

targets that have not been previously 

monitored using video and acoustic 

recorders for at least three launch 

events. 

(e) Annual Pinniped Monitoring 

Report on SNI. The Navy must submit 

an annual report to NMFS of the SNI 

rocket and missile launch activities. The 

draft annual monitoring report must be 

submitted to the Director, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, within 

three months after the end of the 

calendar year. NMFS will submit 

comments or questions on the draft 

monitoring report, if any, within three 

months of receipt. The report will be 

considered final after the Navy has 

addressed NMFS’ comments, or three 

months after the submission of the draft 

if NMFS does not provide comments on 

the draft report. The report will 

summarize the launch events conducted 

during the year; assess any direct 

impacts to pinnipeds from launch 

events; assess any cumulative impacts 

on pinnipeds from launch events; and, 

summarize pinniped monitoring and 

research activities conducted on SNI 

and any findings related to effects of 

launch noise on pinniped populations. 

(f) Annual PMSR Study Area Training 

and Testing Activity Report. Each year, 

the Navy must submit a detailed report 

PMSR (Annual Training and Testing 

Activity Report) to the Director, Office 

of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 

three months after the one-year 

anniversary of the date of issuance of 

the LOA. NMFS will submit comments 

or questions on the report, if any, within 

one month of receipt. The report will be 

considered final after the Navy has 

addressed NMFS’ comments, or one 

month after submission of the draft if 

NMFS does not provide comments on 

the draft report. The annual report will 

contain information on all sound 

sources used (total hours or quantity of 

each bin; total annual number of each 

type of explosive events; and total 

annual expended/detonated rounds 

(missiles, bombs, etc.) for each 

explosive bin). The annual report will 

also contain both the current year’s data 

as well as explosive use quantity from 

previous years’ reports. Additionally, if 

there were any changes to the explosive 

allowance in a given year, or 

cumulatively, the report will include a 

discussion of why the change was made 

and include analysis to support how the 

change did or did not affect the analysis 

in the 2021 PMSR FEIS/OEIS and 

MMPA final rule. The annual report 

will also include the details regarding 

specific requirements associated with 

monitoring on SNI. The final annual/ 

close-out report at the conclusion of the 

authorization period (year seven) will 

serve as the comprehensive close-out 

report and include both the final year 

annual use compared to annual 

authorization as well as a cumulative 

seven-year annual use compared to 

seven-year authorization. The detailed 

reports must contain the information 

identified in paragraphs (e)(1) through 

(6) of this section. 

(1) Explosives. This section of the 

report must include the following 

information for explosive activities 

completed that year. 

(i) Activity information gathered for 

each explosive event. 

(A) Location by Special Use Airspace 

(e.g., Warning Area). 

(B) Date and time exercise began and 

ended. 

(C) Total hours of observation by 

Lookouts before, during, and after 

exercise. 

(D) Total annual expended/detonated 

ordnance (i.e., missile, bombs etc.) 

number and types of explosive source 

bins detonated. 

(E) Wave height in feet (high, low, and 

average) during exercise. 

(F) Narrative description of sensors 

and platforms utilized for marine 

mammal detection and timeline 

illustrating how marine mammal 

detection was conducted. 

(ii) Individual marine mammal 

observation (by Navy Lookouts) 

information for each sighting where 

mitigation was implemented. 

(A) Date/Time/Location of sighting. 

(B) Species (if not possible, indicate 

whale or dolphin). 

(C) Number of individuals. 

(D) Initial detection sensor (e.g., sonar 

or Lookout). 

(E) Length of time observers 

maintained visual contact with marine 

mammal. 

(F) Sea state. 

(G) Visibility. 

(H) Whether sighting was before, 

during, or after detonations/exercise, 

and how many minutes before or after. 

(I) Distance of marine mammal from 

actual detonations (or target spot if not 

yet detonated): Less than 200 yd, 200 to 

500 yd, 500 to 1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 

yd, or greater than 2,000 yd. 

(J) Lookouts must report, in plain 

language and without trying to 

categorize in any way, the observed 

behavior of the animal(s) (such as 

animal closing to bow ride, paralleling 

course/speed, floating on surface and 

not swimming etc.), including speed 

and direction and if any calves were 

present. 

(K) The report must indicate whether 

explosive detonations were delayed, 

ceased, modified, or not modified due to 

marine mammal presence and for how 

long. 

(L) If observation occurred while 

explosives were detonating in the water, 

indicate munition type in use at time of 

marine mammal detection. 

(2) Summary of sources used. This 

section of the report must include the 

following information summarized from 

the authorized sound sources used in all 

training and testing events: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37852 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Total annual quantity (per the 

LOA) of each explosive bin; and 

(ii) Total annual expended/detonated 

ordnance (missiles, bombs, etc.) for each 

explosive bin. 

(h) Final Close-Out Report. The final 

(year seven) draft annual/close-out 

report must be submitted within three 

months after the expiration of this 

subpart to the Director, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS. NMFS 

must submit comments on the draft 

close-out report, if any, within three 

months of receipt. The report will be 

considered final after the Navy has 

addressed NMFS’ comments, or three 

months after the submittal of the draft 

if NMFS does not provide comments. 

§ 218.16 Letters of Authorization. 

(a) To incidentally take marine 

mammals pursuant to the regulations in 

this subpart, the Navy must apply for 

and obtain an LOA in accordance with 

§ 216.106 of this chapter. 

(b) An LOA, unless suspended or 

revoked, may be effective for a period of 

time not to exceed between October 31, 

2021, and October 30, 2028. 

(c) If an LOA expires prior to October 

30, 2028, the Navy may apply for and 

obtain a renewal of the LOA. 

(d) In the event of projected changes 

to the activity or to mitigation, 

monitoring, or reporting (excluding 

changes made pursuant to the adaptive 

management provision of § 218.17(c)(1)) 

required by an LOA issued under this 

subpart, the Navy must apply for and 

obtain a modification of the LOA as 

described in § 218.17. 

(e) Each LOA will set forth: 

(1) Permissible methods of incidental 

taking; 

(2) Geographic areas for incidental 

taking; 

(3) Means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact (i.e., 

mitigation) on the species or stocks of 

marine mammals and their habitat; and 

(4) Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

(f) Issuance of the LOA(s) must be 

based on a determination that the level 

of taking is consistent with the findings 

made for the total taking allowable 

under the regulations in this subpart. 

(g) Notice of issuance or denial of the 

LOA(s) will be published in the Federal 

Register within 30 days of a 

determination. 

§ 218.17 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

(a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 

of this chapter and 218.16 for the 

activity identified in § 218.10(c) may be 

renewed or modified upon request by 

the applicant, provided that: 

(1) The proposed specified activity 

and mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures, as well as the 

anticipated impacts, are the same as 

those described and analyzed for the 

regulations in this subpart (excluding 

changes made pursuant to the adaptive 

management provision in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section); and 

(2) NMFS determines that the 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures required by the previous 

LOA(s) were implemented. 

(b) For LOA modification or renewal 

requests by the applicant that include 

changes to the activity or to the 

mitigation, monitoring, or reporting 

measures (excluding changes made 

pursuant to the adaptive management 

provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section) that do not change the findings 

made for the regulations or result in no 

more than a minor change in the total 

estimated number of takes (or 

distribution by species or years), NMFS 

may publish a notice of proposed LOA 

in the Federal Register, including the 

associated analysis of the change, and 

solicit public comment before issuing 

the LOA. 

(c) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 

of this chapter and 218.16 may be 

modified by NMFS under the following 

circumstances: 

(1) Adaptive management. After 

consulting with the Navy regarding the 

practicability of the modifications, 

NMFS may modify (including adding or 

removing measures) the existing 

mitigation, monitoring, or reporting 

measures if doing so creates a 

reasonable likelihood of more 

effectively accomplishing the goals of 

the mitigation and monitoring. 

(i) Possible sources of data that could 

contribute to the decision to modify the 

mitigation, monitoring, or reporting 

measures in an LOA include: 

(A) Results from the Navy’s annual 

monitoring report and annual exercise 

report from the previous year(s); 

(B) Results from other marine 

mammal and/or sound research or 

studies; 

(C) Results from specific stranding 

investigations; or 

(D) Any information that reveals 

marine mammals may have been taken 

in a manner, extent, or number not 

authorized by the regulations in this 

subpart or subsequent LOAs. 

(ii) If, through adaptive management, 

the modifications to the mitigation, 

monitoring, or reporting measures are 

substantial, NMFS will publish a notice 

of a new proposed LOA in the Federal 

Register and solicit public comment. 

(2) Emergencies. If NMFS determines 

that an emergency exists that poses a 

significant risk to the well-being of the 

species of marine mammals specified in 

LOAs issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of 

this chapter and 218.16, an LOA may be 

modified without prior notice or 

opportunity for public comment. Notice 

will be published in the Federal 

Register within thirty days of the action. 

§ 218.18 [Reserved] 

§ 218.19 [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2021–14542 Filed 7–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2